# CORRESPONDENCE OF V. I. LENIN WITH AGENTS OF "ISKRA," MEMBERS OF THE RUSSIAN ORGANIZATION OF "ISKRA," AND MEMBERS OF THE O.K.
# October 1900 — May 1903
# PREPARED FOR PUBLICATION BY
Ts. BOROVSKAYA
P. N. PODVOISKAYA

## INTRODUCTION

This collection contains letters relating to the period from October 1900 to the middle of 1903, that is, from the emergence of "Iskra" until the Second Party Congress. These are, principally, Lenin's letters. A small part of them is addressed to comrades abroad; the larger part to comrades and organizations in Russia. In addition, there are several letters from Russia (Galperin from Baku, the Petersburg Committee to the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, Lengnik to the "Iskra" editorial board, E. M. Aleksandrova to Lenin and Martov). These are letters that did not fit into the groups of letters relating to this period and published earlier either in the "Lenin Collections" or in "Proletarian Revolution." It is best to read them in connection with the material already published earlier.

Let us begin with the correspondence from abroad.

The collection includes 7 letters from Lenin to V. P. Nogin, who was living in London at that time. The letters were written from Munich on October 10, 1900; November 2, 1900; January 3, 1901; January 24, 1901; February 21, 1901; March 23, 1901, and April 6, 1901. These letters should be read against the background of V. P. Nogin's letters to S. V. Andropov ("Proletarian Revolution" for 1924, No. 8-9 (31-32), p. 325) on the one hand, the correspondence of the "Iskra" and "Zarya" editorial board for the Munich period (from October 1900 to April 1902) ("Lenin Collection" III, p. 33) on the other. In the first letter, Vladimir Ilyich, having received information about V. P. Nogin from Martov, whose sister, Lidia Osipovna, and brother, Sergei Osipovich, worked together with Nogin in the Petersburg organization of "Workers' Banner" in 1898, comes to an agreement with Nogin regarding correspondence and at the same time asks him a series of questions: "Why did you choose London, what kind of people are in London, what are your plans, when are you thinking of going to Russia?" Viktor Pavlovich was a worker, and this, as always happened with Vladimir Ilyich, immediately disposed him favorably toward Nogin; hence the extremely friendly tone of the very first letter and the request to "write in more detail about how you are living."

It is taken for granted that Viktor Pavlovich is preparing to go to Russia.

The second letter from Vladimir Ilyich to Nogin is already about work in Russia. In this letter, Vladimir Ilyich reveals himself as a very thoughtful and capable organizer. He writes to Nogin: "We place great hopes on your collaboration—especially in the matter of direct connections with workers in various places."

Vladimir Ilyich believed that a worker would be able to approach other workers more closely than anyone else, to establish tighter bonds with them. Vladimir Ilyich knew this from experience. Before leaving for abroad, Vladimir Ilyich had met with Ivan Vasilievich Babushkin—a worker who had been in his circle in the '90s—and had agreed with him that Babushkin would link workers with "Iskra," deliver "Iskra" to them, and organize workers' correspondence for "Iskra." Babushkin undertook this work seriously and achieved no small results. The "Iskra" editorial board had already received workers' correspondence with the first issues. But, knowing that work goes best when it is congenial to one's nature, Vladimir Ilyich asks Nogin: "Do you have the stomach for such work? Have you nothing against traveling? It would probably require constant travel."

At that time, Nogin belonged to the group of "Workers' Banner." And Vladimir Ilyich asks him: "Does that Petersburg group still exist from which your friend has credentials? Do they have connections with workers in general and in particular with the 'Petersburg Workers' Organization'?" The "Workers' Banner" group corresponded with Plekhanov. In a letter to Andropov—V. P. Nogin's closest comrade—Plekhanov wrote on May 14, 1900: "I have seen 'Workers' Banner' and I fully approve of its content. And since there are no differences of principle, the matter will proceed of its own accord" ("Proletarian Revolution" 8-9 (31-32), 1924, p. 323). Vladimir Ilyich, as an organizer, wanted to strengthen the connection between "Workers' Banner" and "Iskra" as quickly as possible. S. V. Andropov turned to the English socialist Hyndman with a request to write an article for "Workers' Banner" on the question of trade unionism. Plekhanov wrote to Andropov in May 1900: "I will read Hyndman's article with interest. In my opinion, you did well to turn to him. It doesn't matter that the article may be more suited to intellectuals than to workers: this article will serve as a kind of program statement (on the question of trade unionism's relation to politics), and here one is obliged sometimes to speak in terms not entirely popular" (ibid.). Nogin forwarded Hyndman's article to "Iskra." Vladimir Ilyich wrote to him in a letter of January 3, 1901: "We intend to publish Hyndman's article soon with a note that 'it was delivered to us in manuscript form by the author through the intermediation of one of the members of the Petersburg group of "Workers' Banner."' It seemed to V. P. Nogin that such a statement was inconvenient. "If you do not mention Workers' Banner in the note, would you not think of another way to put it?" Vladimir Ilyich asks in his next letter—"for instance, from (through the intermediation of) one who worked in Petersburg in 1897, a member of the Workers' Banner group or something like that. In my opinion, it would be better somehow to note through whom the article was obtained, but if you are of a different opinion, then of course we will print it without any notation of who sent it." Vladimir Ilyich tries not to impose anything on Nogin, respects his wishes.

Vladimir Ilyich always took workers' opinions into account and listened to them. Sending Nogin the first issue of "Iskra," he asked him to communicate his opinion. In a letter of April 6, 1901, Vladimir Ilyich writes to Nogin: "We have just received from Alexei (Martov) your letter about 'Zarya.' Many thanks for the detailed and frank review: such reviews are all the more valuable to us because they are very rare. Your remarks about the insufficiency of political surveys and articles in Zarya are entirely just. We are fully aware of this deficiency and will make every effort to correct it."

In July 1901, V. P. Nogin went to Russia, and I connected him with Liubov Nikolaevna Radchenko, who was living in Kharkov, asking her to give him connections with workers and intellectuals (No. 32).

The example of Viktor Pavlovich shows how often all preliminary negotiations and plans came to nothing upon arrival in Russia. Viktor Pavlovich was supposed to go to Odessa: connections there were necessary. But he did not go alone; he went with Andropov. In Vilnius he met Sergei Osipovich Tsederbaum, and all the plans worked out abroad were abandoned. This trio, bound together by previous work and friendship, under the influence of difficulties in organizing transport on the one hand, and information about the successes of the Kishinev print shop on the other, decided all three to go to Petersburg and organize a regional organ of the Russian Organization of "Iskra" there. Learning of this "plan," Ilyich wrote a heated letter to the trio (No. 34), which set forth in detail his organizational views on the role of "Iskra," local organs, etc. To the trio's plan, he opposed his own plan, which the entire "Iskra" editorial board then shared. Ilyich concludes the letter with an appeal to be more patient and an indication of the danger for Nogin of going to Petersburg. He went there anyway, though he abandoned the plan for a regional organ. In October, I wrote to him there (letter No. 39), reporting the results of the foreign congress of "Iskra" jointly with "Workers' Cause," and indicated how to meet with the Kzhizhanovsky family, who were returning from abroad. They were supposed to pass through and meet with Stepan Ivanovich Radchenko and tell him in detail about the "unification" congress. This letter did not reach Nogin: on August 26 (O.S.) Andropov was arrested in Kazan, and on October 2 (O.S.) Viktor Pavlovich was arrested in Petersburg. Ilyich's predictions came true.

Sergei Osipovich went to Kishinev, to Akim (L. I. Goldman), where "Iskra" had its print shop. I forwarded to him and Akim (in letter No. 38) the organizational plan of "Iskra," which developed the main ideas expressed by Ilyich in his letter to the trio. The plan for the organization of "Iskra" in this letter already has quite a concrete character. This letter gave Akim the idea of calling a congress of "Iskra" supporters and laying the foundations for the Russian Organization of "Iskra." In December 1901, Ilyich writes about this to Akim, speaking of "Iskra's" agreement to the congress and indicating the tasks of that congress.

On January 30, 1902, Z. P. Kzhizanovskaia reports from Samara (see letter No. 48) about the congress of "Iskra" supporters and its decisions.

The first organizational period had ended.

In this period, the work was held together principally by Lenin's, Martov's, and Potresov's personal connections, by the connections from Petersburg work in the '90s and from exile.

Martov had connections through his sister (Lidia Osipovna) and his brother (Sergei Osipovich). Their connections are utilized (Goldman, Nogin, Andropov). Lenin had connections through his sisters (Anna and Maria Ilyinishna) and through his brother (Dmitri Ilyich). Potresov had connections with Kalmykova and Struve. Working as "agents of Iskra" were friends from Petersburg work—Stepan Ivanovich and Liubov Nikolaevna Radchenko, Babushkin, the Kzhizhanovsky family, Kshynovich, Silvin, Lengnik, Krasin—and people close to them: Ivan Ivanovich Radchenko, the sisters of Zinaida Pavlovna Kzhizanovskaia, her close acquaintances from the Volga—the Piskunovs. Comrades from exile worked as well—Okulova, the Lepeshinskys, Baramzin, A. D. Tsyurup, Krokhmal, and others. All these helpers of "Iskra" knew each other more or less well; the character of relations was closely friendly.

Working, besides them, were also Bauman, Noskov and his group, which held itself somewhat apart, not fully agreeing with the "Iskra" supporters.

Lenin's correspondence from abroad for 1900 and 1901 shows what trifles Vladimir Ilyich had to occupy himself with. Thus, in a letter to Nogin, he writes about the necessity of distributing in London five copies (!) of "Iskra" being sent to Nogin. The letters to Dan and Vecheslov are full of instructions about addresses, money collections, suitcases, and so forth. A good half of the letters to Russia are also devoted to all kinds of organizational trifles. Every letter testifies to the attention Ilyich paid to that mundane, rough work, without which it was impossible to lay the foundation of a solid revolutionary organization.

In October 1901, the so-called "unification" congress of foreign social-democratic organizations took place. Regarding preparation for the congress, see letters: No. 26 (to Voronezh) and No. 37 (to Danevich). As is known, no unification took place—the presence of differences of principle was too great.

Lenin was intensively working on the pamphlet "What Is to Be Done?", while his allies were organizing a conference of the most important committees to resolve the question of the foreign conflict. Regarding this conference, Vladimir Ilyich in December 1901 wrote a warning letter to Russian comrades. And at the end of February 1902, Petersburg supporters of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad believed they had everything ready, that within a month it would be possible to convene a Party Congress, of which they wrote to the "Union" (see letter No. 49).

The congress, which the allies were planning, did not acquire the scale they intended to give it, and was turned into a conference (the Bialystok conference). The conference reached no decisions. Most of its participants were arrested, including Dan, who had gone to the conference as a representative of the Organization of "Iskra" (see letter No. 51). Lenin outlines further tactics in a letter to Kzhizhanovsky dated May 6. The striving of "Workers' Cause" and Bund to bypass the Organization of "Iskra," not to allow "Iskra" to influence the congress, which was brightly revealed in the attempt to convene a congress bypassing "Iskra," and the fear of excessive softness and credulity on the part of "Iskra" supporters (and especially Kzhizhanovsky), the fear of their insufficient vigilance, their underestimation of the difficulty of the situation, forces Lenin to press in every way on the Organization of "Iskra" (letter No. 51).

Meanwhile, the influence of "Iskra" began to grow noticeably. "What Is to Be Done?" reaches Russia, comes to local organizations, and produces undoubtedly a change in sentiment.

Lenin was especially interested in how workers regarded "What Is to Be Done?" Thus, on July 16, 1902, Lenin writes to Ivan Ivanovich Radchenko: "Your account of the conversation with workers absolutely delighted me. It is extremely rare for us to receive letters that truly bring a great deal of encouragement. Please, without fail, pass this on to your workers and convey to them our request that they themselves also write to us not only for publication, but also for the exchange of thoughts, so as not to lose contact with each other and mutual understanding. I am personally especially interested in how the workers will respond to 'What Is to Be Done?', since I have not yet received workers' reviews" (see p. 256).

Also interesting is a letter relating to the same period (No. 57) to Ch., in which Lenin writes about what an underground organization should be and how it should be linked with the broad masses. The combination of maximum secrecy of the organization with its linkage to the masses especially interested Lenin during that period.

To the same period also belongs the letter "To Yeremy," which became well-known to local activists (included in Vol. V of the new edition of Ilyich's Works, p. 179). The work of "Iskra" supporters in Russia acquires a different character in this period—they not only print, deliver, and distribute "Iskra," supply it to committees, but they fight for influence over the committees. The number of "Iskra" supporters expands considerably; this is no longer a comparatively narrow circle of people well-known to each other: there emerges a much broader organization. Letters from Russia depict all the difficulties and the internal contradictions which the rapidly growing underground organization was experiencing.

Lenin fights against foreign idle talk about a congress (letter No. 55), against foreign scheme-mongering (letters No. 54 and No. 55), and intensively writes to the old "Iskra" supporters, outlining a plan for organizing the O.K. (No. 61).

The period before the official organization of the O.K. in mid-November 1902 was one of the most difficult. It was necessary to unite Russian organizations ideologically and organizationally, but there were very few forces; everyone was excessively nervous.

With the formation of the O.K., preparations for the congress proceeded at a faster pace, but while acquiring ever greater ideological influence, "Iskra" fell behind organizationally. Formally recognizing "Iskra," "Workers' South" acquired very strong organizational influence. A cautionary character was borne by the letter of Zhak (No. 88). But it was no longer possible to delay matters on political grounds. It was necessary to hurry with the congress (No. 89).

The letters presented in this collection supplement the picture of the development of the Organization of "Iskra" and the preparation of the Second Congress already known earlier, illustrating some moments even more vividly.

By now, extensive material relating to this period has been published: "Report to the First Congress of the Organization of 'Iskra,'" correspondence of "Iskra" with "Workers' South," with the Samara bureau, with representatives of the O.K. This material should be combined, arranged in chronological order, and supplemented with published memoirs and references to articles. The result will be something integral and complete. This should be done without undue delay.

N. Krupskaya.

The manuscripts of the letters published in the section "From the Era of 'Iskra' and 'Zarya'" are, in the majority of cases, drafts of letters written either before being encoded and recopied in invisible ink between the lines of innocent correspondence, or in books, or copies of letters recorded after development of the chemical text and its decoding. The latter applies to letters received by the "Iskra" editorial board from Russia. These latter, as well as all letters of I. K. Krupskaya and some letters of Lenin, are recorded in student notebooks stored in the archive of the Lenin Institute under Nos. 4534, 4450, 4425, 4369, 4368, 4435, 4442, 4450, 4342, 4445, 4446, 4422, 4444, 4434, 4336, 4288, 4448, 4443 (the archive numbering is placed in the right corner above the heading of each letter in nonpareil type). These notebooks represent a unique kind of office record of incoming and outgoing correspondence, arranged by addressee.

The text of Lenin's and Martov's letters is presented in the usual way applied in the "Lenin Collections," with complete accuracy, with editorial expansions of incomplete or abbreviated words enclosed in square brackets.

In the text of I. K. Krupskaya's letters and copies of letters received by the "Iskra" editorial board from Russia, the editorial board, in expanding words, did not place square brackets.

## 1.

TO LONDON.

October 10/22, 1900 [Munich].

Dear Vasily Petrovich*!

Only yesterday did I receive your address and the resolution of the 23 against credo from Pavel Borisovich (Akselrod). Alexei has already long written to me that you would be abroad, but I could not find you (the fellow, not to have given you my addresses for letters!). Please respond and write in more detail about how you are living; how long have you been in London, what are you doing, what kind of people are in London, what are your plans, when are you thinking of going? Why did you choose London?

We have not agreed on a password: I am replacing the password (since you don't know me—how did Alexei describe me to you? Do you have from his account a sufficient understanding of our cause?) with the initials of the person at whose address I must write to Alexei. Alexei writes to me: if you can't make out the address, ask Novoselov. Here are the initials of the address: K. A. G. G.—fill in the remaining letters, and then we will be "linked."

I press your hand firmly,

Petrov. Reply to the address:

Herrn Philipp Roegner, Cigarrenhandlung, Neue Gasse, Nürnberg.

In 2 envelopes, on the second: for Petrov.

P.S. Please give 2-3 addresses of completely reliable people (outsiders, not revolutionaries) in order to call on them in Poltava and inquire about Alexei.

V. I. LENIN TO V. P. NOGIN

*) Vasily Petrovich Novoselov—the name under which V. P. Nogin lived abroad from September 1900 to July 1901.

V. L. Nogin (1878-1924) (Vasily Petrovich Novoselov, Yablochkov)—social-democrat, Workers' Banner member, later Iskra supporter, one of the first agents of "Iskra," professional revolutionary, worker; in 1898 N. joined the Petersburg group of "Workers' Banner"; in December 1898 he was arrested in connection with the group's case and in 1899 was exiled under police surveillance to Poltava, where in 1900 he entered a group of "Iskra" organized by Yu. O. Martov; in August 1900 N. left for England, where at that time S. V. Andropov and M. V. Lurie were located, having established a publishing house for the "Workers' Banner" group; in July 1901 N.—as one of the first agents of "Iskra" (Yablochkov)—worked in Moscow; in September 1901 he moved to Petersburg, where he founded the local Iskra organization; October 15 (2), 1901 N. was arrested by the treason of police agent Gurovich and at the end of 1902 was exiled pending trial to Yenisei Province; in April 1903 N. escaped abroad, from where the O.K. sent him to Ekaterinoslav as a committee member; after the split at the Second Congress, N. joined the majority and worked successively in Rostov, Moscow, and Nikolaev; in March 1904 he was arrested; having spent 17 months in the Lomzha prison, he was exiled to the Kola Peninsula in the village of Kuzmino, from where in the summer of 1905 he escaped abroad; returning to Russia in the fall of 1905, he worked successively in the Petersburg Committee, in Baku, in Moscow; in 1907 he was a delegate to the London Congress of the Party from the Moscow social-democratic organization; at the congress he was elected to the Central Committee; in the period from 1907 to 1914, working as a member of the Central Committee, N. was arrested five times, spent a total of 19 months in prison, and escaped from exile three times; at the Sixth Party Congress in 1917 he was re-elected to the Central Committee and took an active part in the organization of soviets; after October 1917—a member of the government; did much work on the creation of our textile industry.

2) Pavel Borisovich Akselrod (1850-1928)—member of the Group "Emancipation of Labor"; one of six editors of "Iskra" and "Zarya," lived in Zurich (Switzerland).

3) V. P. Nogin, having crossed the border illegally near Königsberg on August 31, 1900, brought with him the "Resolution of the 23 against Credo," which he delivered to P. B. Akselrod in Zurich in early September (see the letter of P. B. Akselrod to V. I. Lenin in the "Lenin Collection" III, p. 56).

We do not have the "Resolutions of the 23" in our possession. It was apparently adopted at a gathering of exiled social-democrats from Orel (Vyatka Province) headed by A. N. Potresov, as a sign of solidarity with the "protest of seventeen"—"Protest of Russian Social-Democrats," written by Lenin (see Works, Vol. IV, p. 477). Yu. O. Martov mentions the protest of the Orel exiles in "Notes of a Social-Democrat" ("Red Virgin Land." Moscow. 1924, p. 409).

4) Alexei—the pseudonym of Martov, which he bore abroad in 1901.

Yu. O. Martov (1873-1923) (Alexei, Berg, Pakhomiy)—one of the members of the literary group that created "Iskra" and one of six editors of "Iskra" and "Zarya"; in spring 1900, after returning from three years of exile in Turukhansk in connection with the case of the Petersburg Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class, M. settled in Poltava (by decree of the police department, all those exiled in connection with the Petersburg Union case were forbidden to live in university and factory centers for three years after completing their exile); in Poltava M. founded an "Iskra" group, which after his departure came under the leadership of L. N. Radchenko; M. used his year of residence in Poltava to establish connections with social-democratic organizations in Russia, principally with organizations connected with "Workers' South"; in March 1901 M. came to Munich.

5) The address and person for whom Lenin wrote to Martov in Poltava have not been established.

6) Petrov—Lenin's pseudonym abroad, established in relations with the Group "Emancipation of Labor."

## 2.

TO LONDON.

November 2/14, 1900 [Munich].

Please forgive me, dear Novoselov, that I am so shamefully late in answering your letter of October 17: all manner of "petty" affairs and trifles here kept distracting me, and besides I was waiting for a reply from Alexei. And I needed to wait for it in order to settle the question of our editorial statement. Alexei has decided not to distribute it for now. Therefore, in sending you one copy, I very much ask you to keep it secret, not showing it to anyone (except perhaps the close friend of yours who has credentials from the Petersburg group and whom you write about) and absolutely not handing it over to anyone. We have generally decided not to distribute this thing abroad while it makes the rounds in Russia, and since Alexei is holding it back there as well, it is especially important for us to prevent it from getting circulation here. Counting on your close participation in our cause, I have decided to make an exception and acquaint you with the statement. Keep in mind while reading it that we intend to publish both a newspaper and a journal (or collection), but the statement is silent about the latter for certain special considerations connected with the journal's publication plan. Some passages of the statement should therefore not be related to the newspaper alone.

Write, please, what impression the statement made on you and your friend.

What type of "agitational journal" do the members of the "Workers' Banner" group intend to publish (you did write about them)? What character and with what contributors?

Regarding passage across the border into Russia, I think that this can always be easily arranged: we have connections with several groups conducting the passage, and besides, recently one member of our group received a promise (seemingly a solid one) that they will be able to pass anyone to Russia without a passport. I think this can easily be arranged.

Regarding a Russian passport—the matter is more complicated. For now there is nothing, and the "prospects" are still very uncertain. Perhaps by spring this too will be arranged.

I will probably remain here for quite some time, and our correspondence can therefore be conducted without inconvenience.

You ask: what work would we like to ask you to undertake? It seems to me that for us the following work will be especially important (by spring or by autumn, when you plan to set out): 1) conveying literature across the border; 2) distribution in Russia; 3) organization of workers' circles for distribution of the newspaper and the receipt of information, etc.—that is, in general the organization of newspaper distribution and the organization of close and proper connections between it and individual committees and groups. We place great hopes on your collaboration—especially in the matter of direct connections with workers in various places. Do you have the stomach for such work? Have you nothing against traveling? It would probably require constant travel.

Does that Petersburg group still exist from which your friend has credentials? If so, can't he provide addresses for contact in Petersburg and a password, so that we can transmit our statement to them? Do they have connections with workers in general and in particular with the "Petersburg Workers' Organization"?

I press your hand firmly and wish you to depart from the foreign quarantine as quickly and easily as possible.

Your Petroff.

P.S. Am I writing the address correctly?

Inform me of receipt of this letter.

*) We do not have Nogin's letter to Lenin of October 17.

2) The draft of the editorial statement on the publication of the newspaper "Iskra" was compiled by Lenin and read by him at a Pskov meeting (Lenin, Martov, Potresov, S. I. Radchenko, P. B. Struve, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky) in March 1900 (Published in Works, Vol. IV, pp. 1-13.) The author then reworked this draft after arriving abroad following a meeting in August 1900 with members of the Group "Emancipation of Labor" (G. V. Plekhanov, P. B. Akselrod, and V. I. Zasulich). In the first half of October the statement was printed as a separate sheet under the title: "'Iskra'. Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party. From the Editorial Board." (Ibid., pp. 33-41.) For reasons of conspiracy, it was decided not to distribute the statement abroad until it had made the rounds in Russia. Apparently the same conspiracy considerations forced Martov to temporarily "hold back" distribution of the statement in Russia.

3) "Petersburg group"—this is the "Workers' Banner" group to which Nogin belonged. It formed from oppositional elements of the Petersburg "Union of Struggle" in the second half of 1897. Initially the group was called, after the name of the Bialystok group in opposition to the Bund, the "Group of Workers' Revolutionaries." The group put socialist and political propaganda among workers in the forefront of its activities. The printed editions of the group's first period were No. 1 of the newspaper "Workers' Banner" (May 1898), the pamphlet "Tasks of the Russian Workers' Party" (1898), and several proclamations printed in Bialystok. By that time the group had added the subtitle "Russian Social-Democratic Party" to its name. The word "Russian" emphasized that the "party," in the conception of its organizers, was built on national grounds. In July (O.S.) 1898 the Bialystok print shop was raided and the core of the group was arrested. In the fall of 1898, a new group with the same aims and the same name was formed in Petersburg, which took a sharply hostile position toward the economic group "Workers' Thought." The activists of this "Workers' Banner" group were: S. V. Andropov, V. P. Nogin, M. B. Smirnov, S. O. Tsederbaum, L. O. Kantsel (Martov's sister), O. A. Zvezdochetova-Davydova, worker Orlov, and others. This group was raided on December 28 (16), 1898. By 1900, police repression had scattered the group: S. O. Tsederbaum and V. P. Nogin were in Poltava, S. V. Andropov in London. M. V. Lurie—a member of the first group of 1898, who had escaped the July raid and was abroad—was the actual representative of the group abroad and organized its publishing house. He managed to issue in 1899 the pamphlets: "Battle Cry of the Working Class" (separate reprint from No. 1 of "Workers' Banner"), "Brief History of the French Revolution," "Biography of P. L. Lavrov," "The Spy" (second edition), and "Tasks of the Russian Workers' Party" (second edition). S. V. Andropov left for London in late 1899, having received credentials from the newly formed Petersburg "Workers' Banner" group of 1899 to represent the group abroad. Over the period 1900-1901, the group published abroad: the newspaper "Workers' Banner" No. 2 (March 1900), pamphlets: "Report of Vanovsky on Student Disturbances in 1899," "Forbidden Leaflets," "Battle Cry of the Working Class" (second edition), "Russian Weaver P. A. Alekseev," F. Engels "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany," No. 3 of the newspaper "Workers' Banner" (February 1901) printed by N. Yu. Tatarov (who later became a traitor) in Russia. In January 1901, the Petersburg "Workers' Banner" group merged with the "Socialist" group on the platform of the pamphlet "Tasks of the Russian Workers' Party." During January-April 1901, the activists of the merged group who were in Russia were arrested. Most members of the Petersburg "Workers' Banner" group moved over to the Organization of "Iskra."

"Your close friend"—this is S. V. Andropov (b. 1873) (Bruskov)—social-democrat, Workers' Banner member, later Iskra supporter, one of the first agents of "Iskra"; as a student of the Petersburg University, A. was brought in for gendarme investigation in 1893 for participation in the student revolutionary movement and in 1894 for participation in a demonstration on the occasion of the self-immolation in prison of student Vetrova; subsequently, having defined himself as a social-democrat, came into opposition to the economic tendency prevalent in the late '90s in the Petersburg Union of Struggle and in 1898 was one of the active workers of the "Workers' Banner" group; in December 1898 he was arrested in connection with this group's case and after five months of preliminary detention was placed under special surveillance in his hometown of Novocherkassk; at the end of 1899 he escaped abroad and settled in England, becoming editor of the "Workers' Banner" group's publications; when the "Workers' Banner" group dissolved, he joined "Iskra"; in July 1901 he left illegally for Russia as one of the first agents of "Iskra"; was arrested on a ship dock in Kazan on September 8 (August 26), 1901, and exiled pending trial to Eastern Siberia; in 1903 he escaped, was captured at the border, and as an illegal was tried by the Odessa court of appeals; in 1910 A. legalized himself and took up teaching.

4) Lenin is referring to "Zarya," a social-democratic scientific-political journal, the first No. of which came out March 23, 1901, and the last (No. 4) in December 1902. The editorial board of "Zarya" was the same as "Iskra's," namely: P. B. Akselrod, V. I. Zasulich, Yu. O. Martov, V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov, A. N. Potresov.

5) "Special considerations" of a purely conspiracy character. "Zarya," as a scientific journal, was printed in Stuttgart by the German social-democrat Dietz, who feared police harassment if the connection of this journal with the underground "Iskra" were established; the "Iskra" print shop was at that time in Leipzig.

6) The plan for the "Workers' Banner" group to publish an "agitational journal" is unknown to us; apparently the plan for creating a regional organ of "Iskra" in Russia, which was decided to be implemented in July 1901 at a meeting of S. V. Andropov, V. P. Nogin, and S. O. Tsederbaum in Vilnius (see letter 34, p. 183), was connected with the agitational journal plan mentioned here.

7) The Workers' Organization in Petersburg arose in the summer of 1900 as an organization promoting the economic struggle of workers (mutual aid, self-education, etc.). According to the original plan of the group of workers and intellectuals—its initiators—the Organization was supposed to be grouped around a fund for struggle and mutual aid. In No. 9 of "Workers' Thought," which came out in September 1900, was published an "Appeal" of this organization "to the workers of all factories and plants," in which workers were called to organize circles to explain the program of their struggle and for mutual aid. In November 1900 the Workers' Organization merged with the Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class. The program and statute of this merged organization were printed in No. 11 of "Workers' Thought," April 1901. (The "Appeal," "Program," and "Statute" of the Petersburg Workers' Organization are presented in K. Takhtarev's book "The Workers' Movement in Petersburg 1893-1901," Priboi Publishing House, 1924, pp. 151-157.)

## 3.

TO LONDON.

January 3, 1901 [Munich].

Dear Comrade!

I received "Revolution and Counter-Revolution" and am very grateful to you for sending this pamphlet. Regarding passage at the present moment, we cannot take on any definite commitments. The routes we have are now being set up and apparently will be set up, but it has not yet been determined how they will function. Most likely in 2-3 weeks at most we will be able to give you a definite answer, and if we are able, we will be happy to undertake to pass your pamphlet. We know nothing of Max Menks and are not doing business through him. We have received your letters and correspondence. Some of them we have already utilized for the newspaper. Incidentally, the first issue should be ready soon, and then I will send it to you. In the very near future we are expecting our Poltava friend to come here. All the best. Oh yes, there's one more thing. Learning that we have a finished translation of Kautsky's book "Bernstein and the Social-Democratic Program," one of the members of the "Workers' Banner" group turned to one of the members of our group in Russia with a proposal to publish this translation. But we would like to publish it ourselves, under our own imprint. Therefore, would the proposing persons be willing to give us money for its publication, even some amount. Please write, do you have the possibility and are you willing to correspond with them about this?

Your Petrov.

Address: Herrn Philip Roegner.
Cigarrenhandlung. Neue Gasse.
Nürnberg.

We intend to publish Hyndman's article soon with a note that "it was delivered to us in manuscript form by the author [by] the intermediation of one of the members of the Petersburg 'Workers' Banner' group." If you have anything to say about the underlined words, please inform us immediately.

I press your hand. Petrov.

1) The pamphlet "Karl Marx [Actually F. Engels. Ed.]. Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany" came out in Russian translation in the first half of December 1900 in the publication of "Workers' Banner."

2) Nogin asked the "Iskra" editorial board in a letter of December 17 to pass Engels' pamphlet "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany" into Russia, which letter we do not have, but which he mentions in his letter of December 17 to S. V. Andropov (see "Proletarian Revolution" No. 8-9 (31-32), 1924, p. 343).

3) Information about Max Menks could not be gathered; apparently this was a person involved in transporting underground publications across the border.

4) No. 1 of "Iskra," marked "December 1900," was set and made up on December 24, 1900 (see Lenin's letter to P. B. Akselrod of December 24, 1900, "Lenin Collection" II, p. 124); it is possible that it was delayed in printing and therefore came out in the first days of January 1901.

5) The Poltava friend—Yu. O. Martov.

6) Kautsky's book: "Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm. Eine Antikritik von Karl Kautsky" came out in 1899 in the publication of Dietz: Stuttgart. Verlag von J. H. W. Dietz Nachfolger. Lenin read this book while in exile in the village of Shushensko and translated it there (see N. Krupskaya "Memoirs," GIZ, 1926, p. 34); the book was published only in 1905 under the title: "K. Kautsky. Collection of Articles," St. Petersburg, publ. by G. F. Lvovich; in the first edition the translator's name was not given; in the second edition of 1906, published by the same publishing house, it is indicated: "Translation by Lenin."

On January 7, 1901, Nogin, quoting from the present letter of Lenin on the publication of the translation, wrote to S. V. Andropov: "What do you think, whose business is this...? I think it's Lurie's." ("Proletarian Revolution" No. 8-9, 1924, p. 348.) Nogin was mistaken: the proposal to publish the translation came from M. B. Smirnov (see letter 4, note 3, p. 115).

7) The "Workers' Banner" publishing house at that time was experiencing considerable financial difficulties, as can be seen from a letter from V. P. Nogin to S. V. Andropov ("Proletarian Revolution" No. 8-9, 1924, pp. 348-349).

8) Hyndman's article "Socialism, Trade-Unionism, and Political Struggle" (H. M. Hyndmann "Socialism, trade-unionism and political action") was commissioned from the author by S. V. Andropov for No. 3 of "Workers' Banner." It was not published. It is kept in manuscript (autograph) in the Lenin Institute archive under arch. No. 20256. There is a translation by Lenin, also in the Institute under arch. No. 20255.

G. M. Hyndman (1842-1922)—leader of the English Social-Democratic Federation (S.D.F.), founded in 1881; leader of the right wing of the British Socialist Party founded in 1911 (B.S.P.); during the war a social-patriot; in 1915 was expelled from the B.S.P., which maintained an internationalist position.

## 4.

TO LONDON.

January 24/February 6, 1901 [Munich].

Dear Comrade!

I received your letter about passports and wrote to my friend here, from whom I could expect help in this matter, and now I am waiting for a reply. I think that a foreign passport (for entry into Russia) can be obtained (Bulgarian or German); as for a Russian passport or even just a blank, i.e., a clean passport booklet, I do not hope for this. Of course, it may turn out to be possible, but I would advise you to immediately take measures to obtain a foreign passport—otherwise you risk being left without any. A Russian passport, if it proves possible to obtain, would be better gotten in Russia.

If you do not mention Workers' Banner in the note, would you not think of another way to put it? For instance, from (through the intermediation of) one who worked in Petersburg in 1897, a member of the Workers' Banner group or something like that. In my opinion, it would be better somehow to note through whom the article was obtained, but if you are of a different opinion, then of course we will print it without any notation of who sent it.

I was informed of the name of that Petersburg man who made a proposal (in the provinces and rather obscurely) to publish the Kautsky translation. I hesitate to trust the name to the mail—however, I will transmit it to you in the following way. Write the name, patronymic (in Russian fashion) and surname of Alexei and denote all 23 letters with numbers according to their order. Then the surname of this Petersburg man will be composed of the letters: 6th, 22nd, 11th, 22nd (instead of it read the following letter of the alphabet), 5th, 10th, and 13th.

Regarding the sale of "Revolution and Counter-Revolution," we will inquire of the foreign organizations with which we have relations.

All our business now depends on transportation, which costs a lot of money because of the newness of the venture. Therefore, I cannot give you a definite answer about financial help for the fabrication of passports until it is determined how much money is needed for this and how good are the chances that everything else (except money) necessary for it exists. Alexei gave out money in the spring (sic!) to one influential organization for the purchase of (promised by them) clean passport booklets, but so far has received nothing.

Would you be willing to take on yourself in the near future a permanent function of transportation—that is, live near the border, travel, correspond with smugglers, etc.? Do you know German and in general any language besides Russian?

I press your hand firmly. Your Petrov.

I am sending the newspaper: please do not show it to anyone except your friend and communicate your opinion. No. 2 is being printed.

Write to me at:
Herrn Georg Rittmeyer.
Kaiserstr. 53 I.
München.
(Without any forwarding if the letter is in Russian.)

*) We do not have Lenin's letters "about passports" in our possession.

2) The matter concerns Hyndman's article (see letter 3, note 8, p. 113).

3) The name, patronymic, surname of Alexei—Yuly Osipovich Tsederbaum. If Lenin omitted the fourth letter (=18th), it will come out as "Smirnov."

M. V. Smirnov (b. 1871)—social-democrat; member of the Petersburg "Workers' Banner" group from 1898; on January 10, 1899 (December 29, 1898) was arrested together with the entire group; after 2.5 months of imprisonment was released under open police surveillance; in July 1900 was exiled to the town of Birsk in Ufa Province for 4 years.

*) [Marginal note:] Don't you happen to have a comrade in mind capable of this role and knowing Hebrew? Also: don't you happen to have in mind a completely reliable comrade-typesetter?

4) Which "influential" organization was given money by Yu. O. Martov in spring 1900 for passport fabrication has not been established; it is possible that this was the Bund.

5) On January 24, 1901, Lenin sent Nogin No. 1 of "Iskra" from December 1900. Lenin asked him not to show it to "anyone" for reasons of conspiracy, pending the appearance of this issue in Russia. The first transport of literature with No. 1 of "Iskra," organized by E. H. Rolau, collapsed during passage across the border near Memel in January 1901. News of this collapse was received in Munich considerably later.

TO BERLIN.
Yuryev.

[After May 10, 1901. Munich¹).]

We didn't manage to send you the parcel yesterday with the comrade; we'll send it to Rumania ourselves, and for Persia³) we'll send 4 kilos in a few days by special carrier. So, to Persia⁴) you'll need to send: 1) *Iskra*²) 2) *Zarya*³) 3) Memo by Witte⁴) 4) a mixed parcel, for which they'll bring you the literature. As for Rumania (assuming you've already sent *Iskra*), send *Zarya* in 3 days (if you receive it) and report then. Find out whether it's convenient to send 1 or 2 trunks (with things) by baggage to bearer in Russia. If yes, then send *Iskra* and the receipt send...*)

Regarding Bukh[oltz]'s wife⁵) you must insist that she take two copies of No. 3, since it's extremely inconvenient to compile a journal from miscellaneous material. And it would be good if she gave at least half on the way to Smolensk. But if she absolutely refuses, of course give her what she wants and what you have. We no longer have No. 1 and *Kharkov Days*. Let Bukh[oltz] leave immediately so we can correspond before his wife departs.

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

You can tell the Poles that, without binding our hands with regard to other political parties and without wishing to intervene actively in their mutual relations, we fully sympathize with their cause, are ready to popularize their name in our publications and to facilitate their rapprochement with the Russian S.-D. Party.

Pass this on orally, without showing them the letter*).

We propose that they write an article on their program for *Zarya*, which could serve as the beginning of a discussion on the Polish question. If the Pole can come without special expenses on our part, we have nothing against a meeting⁶).

An article on Bulgarian workers' movement is needed,). We didn't understand about the exchange.

It occurs to us: could the Heidelberg young woman be the very one who was supposed to come from Poltava? Did she write you anything and what exactly? We haven't received anything from any young woman. If her surname is Cherikovер, then she came for trunks—then she must be immediately extracted and supplied with a trunk. Write us immediately her address.

# LENIN COLLECTION

took on the role of "responsible editor" of *Zarya*, which B. refused; in November 1900 B. withdrew from the Union of Russian S.D.s; at the beginning of 1901 he was part of the "group of initiators," attempting to unite the Union of Russian S.D.s abroad, the Revolutionary Organization "Social-Democrat" and the foreign organization of *Iskra*; in March 1901 he joined the *Iskra* group together with R. A. Grosman; after the party split at the Second Congress, B. sided with the Mensheviks; now a member of the German S.D. party.
The wife of Bukhgolts—R. M. Bukhgolts—was preparing to travel to Russia at the indicated time, and the *Iskra* editorial board intended to use her journey as an "occasion" for transporting new *Iskra* literature.
1) According to M. G. Vecheslov, the "Pole" who had negotiations with him about general transport of the S.D.P. with the *Iskra* organization was Trusevich, S. Whether T. was in Munich and met with Lenin has not been established. The promise to "popularize" the S.D.P. Firm in *Iskra* was fulfilled. This is evidenced by a note in No. 7 of *Iskra*, from August 1901, in the section "From the Party," announcing a proclamation issued by the S.D. party in Poland and Lithuania "To Members of the Russian Soc.-Dem. Party"; the proclamation proposes discussion of the question of a general congress of all S.D. organizations of Russia to work out common political demands, a common plan of action, organization of the S.D. party on "Federal principles," and the election of a "Central Council of all S.D. parties in Russia."

A programmatic article of the S.D.P. and L. was not printed in *Zarya*.

2) In No. 6 of *Iskra*, from July 1901, there is a correspondence "Bulgaria" about the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the "middle-gorsk revolution," after which a constitutional state system was established in Bulgaria. The author of this correspondence, according to M. G. Vecheslov, was a member of the Berlin group of *Iskra*, a Bulgarian student Radivoev. Apparently, this is the article received by the *Iskra* editorial board according to N. K. Krupskaya's notation.

14.

TO BERLIN.
Draft of a letter.
18 V 01 [Munich].

Regarding your plan to begin issuing bulletins immediately, we are of course in agreement.1) Only one must work out this plan organizationally—that is, resolve some inevitably arising preliminary questions. For example, will the bulletins be issued and edited by the entire Berlin group for assistance to *Iskra* (it was not proposed to inform the whole group of our organizational plan for now, if I'm not mistaken) or only part of it, or several persons? Will the name of the bulletins indicate their relationship to *Iskra* or not? It would also be desirable that the program of the bulletins correspond to what we have worked out in our project and that the editorial board take care about the distribution of sections (translations of Polish, Finnish, etc. literature) among those sympathetic to *Iskra* and in solidarity with it. It is necessary, finally, that it be definitively decided (such a decision, of course, would not be subject to publication) that the group issuing and editing the bulletins undertakes this work provisionally*) on condition that it will hand it over to an elected Literary Committee when the foreign organization of *Iskra* that we envision is formally constituted. There are still other questions that you will, of course, yourselves see and resolve when you undertake the final organizational working out and formalization of your plan.

V. I. LENIN — M. G. VECHESLOV

For our part, we will select some material we have and send it to you. Tell us, when is the first issue planned? [Format and forms would need to be] [Sizes and] Is it planned to publish bulletins the same (in form and size) as before or different?

Regarding your plan to begin publishing bulletins immediately, we are certainly in agreement.1) One must only work this plan out organizationally—that is, decide several questions that will inevitably arise beforehand. For instance, will the bulletins be issued and edited by the whole Berlin group supporting *Iskra* (we didn't intend to inform the whole group of our organizational plan yet, if I'm not mistaken), or only part of it, or several persons? Will the name of the bulletins show their relation to *Iskra* or not? It would also be desirable that the program of the bulletins correspond with what we have worked out in our project and that the editorial board worry about distributing the sections (translations of Polish, Finnish, and other literature) among those who are sympathetic to *Iskra* and in solidarity with it. Finally, it is necessary that it be definitely decided (such a decision, of course, would not be published) that the group publishing and editing the bulletins takes on this work provisionally*) on the condition that it will transfer it to an elected Literary Committee when the foreign organization of *Iskra* we envision is formally constituted. There are also still other questions which you will, of course, yourselves see and resolve when you take up the final organizational working out and shaping of your plan.

For our part, we will select some material we have and send it to you. Tell us, when is the first issue planned? [The format and forms would need to be] [Size and] Is it planned to publish such bulletins (in form and size) as before or different?

15.

TO MOSCOW.
24 V 01 [Munich].

We received your letter with the report for January, February, March and April. Thank you for the thoroughness and clarity of the list of income and expenses. But regarding your activity in general, we remain in the dark as to what precisely this activity is and what its results are. You wrote that you are torn in all directions and that no one can replace you, but you still have not fulfilled the promise to describe this activity.*) Is your work limited to the transmission of literature to the points indicated in the report? Or are you occupied in forming a group or, respectively,*) groups? If so, where, what kind, what has already been done and what are these groups for—for local work, for sending to us for literature, or for something else?

We ask about this because this question is very important.

Our affairs are going badly. Our finances are in a terrible state. Russia is providing almost nothing. Transportation remains, as before, completely unorganized and haphazard. Our entire "tactics" under such conditions must be wholly directed toward: 1) collecting money in Russia in the name of *Iskra* and channeling it here as completely as possible, reducing local expenses to a minimum; 2) expending money [only and] almost exclusively on transportation, since for reception we already have functioning comparatively very cheap agents who do not burden the coffers in Pskov and Poltava.

V. I. LENIN — N. E. BAUMAN*

*) — and accordingly.—Ed.

V. I. LENIN
N. E. BAUMAN

Think about this carefully. Our daily bread, on which we barely live—it remains, as before, just suitcases. We pay about a hundred rubles per pair, and the haphazardness of the people sent leads to an abyss of delays, inaccuracies, losses, etc. The organization of suitcase carriers from Riga3) (possible according to both Raznotsvetov4) and Ernst5)) is not getting off the ground. No news from Leopold.6) In Finland nothing has been organized, although this too is possible, as various people assure us. Is it rational, given such a state of affairs, to spend 400 r. in four months on local reception and mediation in transmitting literature?

[You have tried two plans of activity so far: 1) organizing a major border or borders for wholesale transportation. There was no success; 2) organizing the distribution of literature and collection of money in a particular district. The results here too do not correspond to the efforts and expenditures. Should we not move to a third plan:] In our opinion, you ought to settle*) IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE BORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING AT LEAST 2-4 SUITCASES AND 10-20 POUNDS ON YOUR PERSON PER MONTH?

16.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA — L. M. KNIPOVICH
TO ASTRAKHAN.

28/V [1901 Munich].

Literature has been sent to the[m] (from Berlin) in 4 shipments, all as it was written (sent: 3rd issue of *Iskra*, *Zarya*, Witte's Note, Woman Worker,*) May Days), now everything should already have been sent. Report whether everything has been done correctly. How soon can the literature be delivered? This is important to know in order to clarify whether this route is suitable for delivering *Iskra* or only for pamphlets, etc. Write what you know.

From Baku the literature received would best be sent to Poltava. There—either by mail or a person. Address for appearing, for mail... password...*) It would be good to meet with Luba (Leiba), find her in Kharkov. Besides, we have written to Samara—we think to organize a literature depot there for the center (for the north we have Pskov and Smolensk). One can maintain relations with the center through Voronezh (addresses), and with the Urals through Ufa (address).

No one has written to us about R[egner] so far.

Has the person left for...?**)

I am sending in book No. 4 for N.4) Write, what literature do you have? Can you find addresses for sending contraband in envelopes?

Regarding the possibility of setting up proper printing of *Iskra* in sufficient quantity in Russia5) too, this would of course be excellent, we even dream of such an arrangement of affairs, even attempted something similar,6) but the trouble is that this requires serious expenditures, and right now our finances are very poor, as some financial prospects have collapsed...

I enclose a letter to Klassov7)—perhaps something can be gotten from him.

[Postscript by V. I. Lenin.]

How do you think you will set up *Iskra* in Russia? In a secret printing house or in a legal one? If the latter, then write immediately whether you have any definite prospects: we would seize this plan with both hands (possible, as we were assured, in the Caucasus) and it would require not much money.*) If the former, then take into account that in our sheet (4 pages) there are up to 100 thousand letters [and that monthly!]: will a secret printing house be able to handle this?? Will it not destroy with excessively great risk a mass of money and people?? Would it not be better to direct these money and forces toward transportation, without which Russia cannot do in any case?**)

17.

TO BAKU.

[28 May 1901 Munich1).]

The group publishing and editing *Iskra* and *Zarya* addresses you as a person who participated with us in one of the first Marxist publishing enterprises,2) who has always been sympathetic to the political activity of the S.D.s, with a request to provide financial support to the cause. At the present time the fate of the entire enterprise depends in significant measure on this support, for the initial fund has been entirely expended on establishment, and in order for the enterprise to pay for itself, we need at minimum another year of full-scale operation. In the spring of last year (1900) one of us spoke with your friend3) (whom you probably see frequently now) and he also expressed confidence that you would not refuse to help. We hoped that with your connections you would be able to collect a solid sum at once, but our organization needs, of course, in addition to periodic (even if small) contributions.

18.

TO PSKOV.

2 a 36—r*).
1/VI 01 [Munich].

We would be very glad to work together with —r... He would be particularly useful at present, given the wavering of the public in general and all sorts of foreign intrigues in particular. Unfortunately, our finances are very poor, and we are decidedly not in a position to allocate him means for travel and living expenses. Finding earnings here is also extremely difficult. (We will not speak of France and French Switzerland, since we do not know them. —r... himself is better informed about this than we are.) In only one case could we provide financial support: if —r... would undertake to come abroad, obtain a French passport here, and with it cross the border 2-3 times through different borders, carrying a pair of suitcases with him. We pay for such transports anyway and would of course more willingly pay him than anyone else, any outsider. With knowledge of languages and resourcefulness he would be able to do this for certain, and along the way he might perhaps find someone else for the same purpose. If he agrees to this, let him write immediately—you will read him this entire letter—[...]*) reports his description in the fullest detail. We will then immediately request a French passport based on these descriptions and, upon receipt, inform him to depart.2) Generally the crux of our entire business now—transportation, transportation and transportation. Whoever wants to help us, let him concentrate entirely on this.

V. I. LENIN — P. N. LEPESHINSKY
AND P. A. KRASIKOV

Now about the 125 r. We have already many times made a mess of things with loans to other organizations: we distributed a mass of money and the result was trifling, almost nil. Therefore we are very afraid to pay in advance henceforth. Furthermore, what matters more to us is the urgency of delivering a small quantity (even if only 1/2 pood a month) than delivering 10-20 p. in 3-4 months, since the monthly publication and delivery of *Iskra* is first on our agenda. So far we live almost entirely on suitcases. Thus discuss in more detail whether the proposal is reliable, which organization it comes from, what type of transport it is, whether we can introduce our person there for control and participation, and then inform us. If you agree to conduct a trial without advance payment, then manage it yourselves. But if we must now hand over large sums, then we are obliged to weigh and discuss all the data from every side.

19.

TO BERLIN.

A.
5/VI 01 [Munich].

We report on the general state of affairs. The 4th issue of *Iskra* has come out and the 5th will come out soon.1) In general, the newspaper will now be monthly. There is no shortage of material. So far the enterprise does not pay for itself. Almost no money is coming in. The most energetic measures are necessary for all kinds of collections and obtaining means, since the basic fund is being exhausted, and*) transportation costs an enormous amount and will cost much until*) our own route is established.**) Everyone who wants to help us should think about this.***)  There are some prospects, but for now one has to seize various opportunities and use the services of other organizations. Various "trials" are costly, and negotiations take up enormous amounts of time.

A conference will take place in a few days at which there will be representatives of all S.D. groups.2) We will try to work out a Federation of these groups. It is unlikely that the conference will produce anything worthwhile, for we have grounds to suppose that the "Union" is going to propose such conditions as cannot be accepted (namely, that it will insist on the electability of *Iskra*'s editorial board). The Union in general does not want unification and has already once rejected such an attempt.3)

The 2nd issue of *Zarya*4) is being prepared, the "Witte Memorandum" has come out.

The Doctor should settle on the border, for instance in Polangen,5) [(] we have connections from our side with non-Russian regions, there is also our own depot [)] ,*) and study the local conditions (one would need to know Latvian and German languages there, but m[aybe] one can get by without them), try to find some plausible occupation for himself (they assure us that one can live there through private practice), put himself in good relations with small local people and accustom them to frequently crossing the border. The border there is crossed not by passport but by Grenzkarte**) (its validity period is 28 days). With such frequent crossing one will be able to carry (on one's person or in a suitcase by our method, for which a small suitcase for medical instruments is needed) gradually, several pounds of literature at a time. It is especially important to us that they carry regularly and frequently, although very little at a time. If a person undertakes to organize this and work himself, himself carry, then we will give him money for travel and lodging for one or two months, while he gets his bearings.***) 

20.

L. E. GALPERIN — TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF *ISKRA*
TO MUNICH.

[5/VI] 23/V [1901] Baku*). Received 18/VI.

The first attempt at transport through Persia must be considered unsuccessful. The reason is that the work was undertaken by an Armenian without connections in Persia and who approached the matter frivolously. So far no news has been received about your shipment...**) But this route can be used with a more serious organization of the matter. An Armenian organization has promised me their help; they have committees in Persia and their own people on the Russian and Persian borders. Unfortunately, the lines of communication are very bad, and necessary information reaches us extremely slowly. In a month's time this question will be clarified in detail for me. As a minimum requirement I set five poods per month; if this proves possible, I will inform you immediately how and how much to send. For now send a trial shipment (maximum weight accepted by the mail) by mail, address:...***)  (Persia)...***)  and inform me of the time and weight of the shipment (also of the first). In a couple of months the matter will already be organized. But I am not stopping at this, there is a possibility of using the eastern shore of the Black Sea; there are connections there. I will have to resort to foreign steamships.

X3) wrote you that here is the project "Nina."4) The project is close to being accomplished, but nothing will come of all this if there is no money, as has been the case so far. Send money to X as soon as possible, and if for some reason you refuse to do so, inform me immediately. Without money nothing can be begun, and unfulfilled promises put one in a very disadvantageous position. Address for correspondence.*) I will soon send a correspondence about Tiflis and Kutais.5) Write what you think about the "Nina" project here.

21.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA — TO THE SOUTHERN DEPARTMENT OF *ISKRA*.

16/VI [1901 Munich].

We have 18 projects of "routes" and most of them are just as fantastic as yours...*) It seems to us that this plan is unachievable. We have no money, we must be very and very economical, but meanwhile we would have to spend money on maintaining 2 people, money is also needed for the fish trade, etc. This plan would be achievable if Fekla*) had half a million. Nothing could be made out of what Leiba2) writes from England, the lines run into each other. N[ogin] is leaving from England, if he hasn't already left, so we cannot count on his help.

Regarding the printing house. Try to reproduce the 5th issue or, if that is beyond your strength, individual articles from it. Sign it: *Iskra* printing house. Be sure to calculate in how much time without any delays you can produce a sheet—that is, 4 pages of *Iskra*—that is, 100 thousand letters,**) so that we know what we can count on, and write to us as soon as possible. Pakhomii has just left for the conference,3) when he returns—he will answer.

The prestige of *Iskra* is growing, money is being given for *Iskra*, but only copecks reach us; everything goes to local Russian organizations of *Iskra*. And we are impoverished—expenses about 1500***) marks a month, not counting transportation.

22.

TO OREKHO­VO-ZUYEVO.

17/VI [1901 Munich].

We have a request for you. Get from the library *Russkoe Bogatstvo*,2) beginning with last December. There some Dadonov wrote an outrageous article about Ivanovo-Voznesensk, in which he tries to portray the Ivanovo-Voznesensk workers as alien to all solidarity, without any strivings or demands. Shesternin refuted Dadonov there in the same place. Dadonov wrote an even more outrageous article, and then *Russkoe Bogatstvo* declared that it was ceasing further discussion of the question.3) Read these articles (if necessary, buy the necessary issues of *Russkoe Bogatstvo* on our account) and write an article or*) a note about them; try to gather as much factual data as possible. It would be very important to place in *Iskra* or *Zarya***) a refutation of this nonsense from the side of a worker***) closely acquainted with the life of Ivanovo-Voznesensk.4) Your correspondences have been placed.5) Did you receive the letter of 3/VI? Have you seen the new issues? Do you have any earnings?

[Part 4/13]

with a foreword by V. I. Zasulich in 1897), "The Workers' Movement in the Ivanovo-Voznesensk Region" (published by the Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad in August 1900); as a result of denunciations by gendarmes and factory owners, Sh. was transferred to the town of Yefremov, Tula Province, then to the town of Bobrov, Voronezh Province; here, through village intellectuals (teachers, village scribes, feldschers, doctors, etc.), Sh. established relations with peasants and supplied them with legal and illegal literature; at the same time (summer of 1900) at Lenin's invitation, Sh. traveled with his wife to the town of Podolsk and Nizhny Novgorod, where he participated in discussions about the creation of the foreign "Iskra"; taking advantage of a certain immunity as a judge, Sh. gave shelter in his apartment to comrades in hiding and in 1902 participated in the liberation of I. Kh. Lalayants, exiled to Balaganask, Irkutsk Province; conducted Social Democratic work in 1905–1907; at L. B. Krasin's invitation, Sh. traveled in 1908 and 1909 to Finland (the dacha area of Pikkiala near Vyborg) and to Paris for negotiations with Lenin concerning the inheritance left to the party by N. P. Schmidt; by assignment of the party, Sh. conducted this matter, realized the shares, and sent the money—amounting to several hundred thousand—to the party in Paris. Since the October Revolution, Sh. has worked in the VSNKH as legal counsel.

4) This refutation was written by I. V. Babushkin and appeared as a brochure: "In Defense of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk Workers"—as a supplement to No. 9 of "Iskra," from October 1901, under the signature "A Worker for Workers."

5) The following correspondences are meant: "From Ivanovo-Voznesensk" (No. 3 of "Iskra," April 1901), "Orekhovo-Zuevo (the locality of Nikolskoye)," "From Ivanovo-Voznesensk" (No. 4 of "Iskra," May 1901) and "Ivanovo-Voznesensk" (No. 5 of "Iskra," June 1901).

23.
TO BERLIN
17/VI 01 [Munich].

We received your letter with a request to send 100 marks. Unfortunately, I cannot fulfill this request until I receive from you those "nearest particulars" that you promise. I cannot in any way take upon myself the decision to disburse this sum (both for formal reasons—because this depends on the collective, and for the reasons I set forth to you at our personal meeting), and I cannot assemble the collective just now owing to the departure of certain persons. Once again I ask you not to be sparing in providing the nearest and most detailed information: without this our relations will never be properly established. Information such as "everything is proceeding satisfactorily for now" can only produce a negative impression on our collective which makes the decision. I understand perfectly well that very often the most energetic efforts prove fruitless owing to circumstances beyond our control, and it would be absurd to blame for failures. But understand as well that if we do not have the most detailed and precise information about what these efforts consisted of, exactly what succeeded (or respectively did not succeed), why precisely, and what the state of affairs and plans are at the present moment, then we cannot take further steps or impose further sacrifices on our principals, for which we are responsible.

V. I. LENIN — M. G. VECHELOV

24.
TO BAKU
[After 18 June 1901 Munich].

To Persia something was only recently sent via Vienna, so it is premature to judge about failure. Perhaps it will succeed. Inform the addressee in Tavris that he should receive books from Berlin and write to us when they arrive.

Regarding the establishment of "Iskra" in the Caucasus, we have already sent a detailed query and have not yet received an answer. We need to know precisely in what the plan consists (legal or illegal printing house), how close it is to implementation, what quantity of printed material it is designed for (can we print "Iskra" monthly?), exactly how much money is needed at once and how much per month. Our treasury is in very poor condition now and we cannot make promises until we have more detailed information. Send it immediately. Make every effort to obtain money: we have already written about this through X to one of your acquaintances and we advise you to ask also ZZ to intercede—one member of the "Iskra" group spoke with him about money at the beginning of last year (remind him of the conversation in one of the capital's theaters). Seek paths for the eastern shore of the Black Sea by all means. Especially press the French steamships—we hope to find a way to them from here.

V. I. LENIN — L. E. GALPERIN

25.
TO MOSCOW
[26 June 1901 Munich].

We have just received word from Nikolai (= Ernst) that he has transported and it lies in a safe place 472 poods; that is the first thing. Second—that there is always a possibility for our man to cross the border with a smuggler and that such people are needed. So here is the proposal we make to you: go at once to the place, go with one of your passports to Nikolai in Memel, find out everything from him, then cross the border by Grenzkarte or with a smuggler, take the literature lying on this side (that is, in Russia) and deliver it everywhere. Obviously, for success of the enterprise we need one more person on the Russian side to assist Nikolai and to control him, always ready to secretly cross the border, principally occupied with receiving literature on the Russian side and transporting it to Pskov, Smolensk, Vilno, Poltava. We have completely lost faith in Nikolai and his people, decided not to give them another kopeck, and only with the direct participation in transport of our own man can we hope to utilize this path. You would be suitable for this because (1) you have already been to Nikolai and (2) you have two passports. This is difficult and serious work, requiring a change of residence, but in return it is the most important work for us. Think it over carefully and answer immediately, without delaying a single day. If you do not take this assignment upon yourself, we must immediately transfer this position to another. Therefore we urge you once more to answer at once.

V. I. LENIN — N. E. BAUMAN

26.
TO VORONEZH
26/VI 01 [Munich].

We received your letter, the correspondence about Voronezh and the addition to it. There were several correspondences from Ivanovo-Voznesensk; we don't know which is yours; if it's not too difficult, repeat it. The person with whom you corresponded is one of our representatives; come to an agreement with him. We can send literature in bindings, of course, but we are afraid to send it to an address for mail, as in case of exposure we would lose the address. With great pleasure we will edit the leaflet. Send it. "Iskra" has already come out with 5 issues. Thank you very much for the materials. You ask what tactics to follow in relation to the Union and the Workers' Cause. To clarify this question, I will describe the situation here. Recently there was a conference of representatives of the foreign organizations of "Iskra" and "Zarya," "Social Democrat" and "Workers' Cause," at which a draft was worked out for the merger of these organizations into one (or rather a Federation of these organizations). The first part of the draft contains a series of principled positions. "Workers' Cause" signed under them and thereby renounced Bernsteinism, economism, the theory of "stages," etc. The second part contains the statute of the new organization. The editorial boards retained their autonomy (the "Iskra" editorial board remains non-elective), while the administration is joint. How such an organization will work out in practice—only the future will show. The agreement will be discussed once more—in the autumn—at a congress and if definitively approved, will be in effect for 2 years. It goes without saying that "Iskra" reserves for itself the right of comradely polemic with "Workers' Cause" and made no concessions in matters of principle and could not have made any. The goal of "Iskra" is to become the guiding organ. At the congress, the question will probably be raised whether it would not be more correct for "Workers' Cause" to cease publication of leaflets altogether and transform itself into a scientific-popular anthology. But this has not yet been discussed. As for administration—the joint administration can be useful, as it will unite forces in matters of transport, collection of money abroad, etc. The Unionists are very willing to accept the Federation in view of the fact that "Iskra" enjoys great success abroad among the youth, who represented previously the main support of the Union. The assistants of the Unionists openly declare their sympathies for "Iskra" and desire to work for it. Moreover, in financial respects, the Unionists will probably only gain from this unification, and in matters of transport their situation is no more brilliant than "Iskra"'s. "Social Democrat" is in solidarity with "Iskra" in everything. From what has been said it is clear what policy to follow in relation to "Workers' Cause" and the Union. There is no competition between them, but since "Iskra" has in view becoming the guiding organ and grouping around itself the Russian active groups, the sending of materials, correspondence, etc. continues as before with "Iskra." Well, all the best.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA — V. A. NOSKOV

27.
TO KIEV
2/VII [1901 Munich].

We received your letter, but we have not yet received the correspondence about Chernigov. It would be very pleasant if correspondence is established—as it is, Kiev is poorly served in this respect. Give us addresses for sending literature in envelopes—we have such addresses in very many cities and they function excellently. It would be good also to have an address for meeting. Have you seen the latest issues of "Iskra"? How do you regard it?

Now about the Workers' Will. We have not entered into any official relations with the Workers' Will thus far. One of our foreign representatives sent us the publications of the Workers' Will and a statement about this group's sympathy for "Iskra." Recently we have begun correspondence with X, but the Workers' Will has not yet been mentioned. The tactics of "Iskra" toward various groups is as follows: it enters into relations with all Social Democratic groups that sympathize with it, receives from them correspondences, money, delivers to them literature, etc. The intensity of relations depends on the group itself. If a group sends correspondences, informs about the progress of its affairs, expresses itself regarding one or another article, proposes various services, gives addresses for meetings, determines the magnitude of demand, in general manifests energy in consolidating the connection between itself and "Iskra," it factually becomes the group which enjoys "Iskra"'s support. Thus far, neither the Kiev Committee nor the Workers' Will have shown such energy, if we do not count the Workers' Will's statement of sympathy for "Iskra." If the Kiev Committee sympathizes with "Iskra," it is entirely within its power to establish with it the closest relations; there is no reason for it to fear competition from the Workers' Will in this respect. Well, all the best. The comrades send you greetings.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA — V. N. KROKHMALI

28.
TO KIEV
3/VII [1901 Munich].

We received 2 of your letters + a letter to Khizhnyakov, transmitted through third parties. What cipher are you using? Our cipher, after all, is X. Report immediately the beginning of the story about the Officers. We will certainly publish it. This is very valuable. Send a complete description of the very beginning. 

Thank you very much for information about the internal life of the Committee. Such information is extraordinarily important, since a series of such information can give a true picture of the movement as a whole.

About the 100,000 copies of "Iskra"—this is some kind of myth; nothing of the sort was ever thought of.

One of us has undertaken to write a popular brochure about the role of the intelligentsia, though I don't know how time will permit him. Right now there is an awful amount of time being eaten up by negotiations and discussions concerning this Federation with the Union and so forth. We have been subjected to so many accusations of "bias" that it was extremely awkward for us to refuse the conference proposed by a neutral group. The Unionists turned out to be accommodating; this is explained by the fact that "Iskra" enjoys great success abroad and the youth, which previously "gravitated" toward the Union and constituted its principal support, now openly goes over to "Iskra"'s side. And in general the Union will benefit from this unification, if it comes about. The unification, however, is unlikely to occur. The editorial board has decided to introduce certain changes in the original draft, guaranteeing "Iskra"'s interests. It is proposed, among other things, to suggest that "Workers' Cause" cease publication of "Leaflets" and transform itself into a scientific-popular anthology. It is said that the Union finds on its side that it made too great concessions. As a result, probably no congress will take place at all. There is nothing yet, but what a quarrel has begun! Oh, this exile! they love to talk and talk here! We will probably gain little from unification with the Union. It is said that we have poorly organized transport, collection of money abroad, etc. This is true, but some things are already being set in order on our side in this respect. There are many proposals. Of course, we would very much like to get rid of administration, since it eats up a mass of time and strength and interferes with concentrating on literary work, but the question is whether the creation of a joint administration, as the draft proposes, will help anything? Connections are gradually growing and one can, it seems, hope that many Russian organizations will group themselves around "Iskra," or at least some things are shaping up in this direction. But the Urals are completely lagging and so forth. The comrades send you greetings. Write.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA — A. I. PETRENKO

29.
TO MOSCOW
3/VII [1901 Munich].

Finally we received your letter with an occasion. It is very much a pity all the same that you are refusing the proposal we made to you. Transport is our sore spot, as you yourself know, and we wanted to concentrate all forces on arranging it. But since you are refusing so categorically, we must discuss what we can give you. For now, there can be no question of properly functioning delivery. With Leopold the matter has fallen through completely. Dimka traveled there and recently a friend of Leopold's was here—they don't want to do anything. Ernst is now making attempts to set things up, but—as we have already written you—for now we are only giving him money while there are no tangible results. There is much more hope in setting up a path with our man, who has undertaken this task. There are many proposals (17 projects!), but all attempts are very expensive, both money and literature disappear... We live by suitcases, for this we have to catch "occasions." We are always dependent on where these occasions are going. As long as matters stand thus, there can be no question of proper distribution; they carry [things] wherever it's most convenient. So it remains for you either to divide the goods yourself with Paulina, or else send your people here for suitcases. What district precisely do you intend to extend your networks over? For now in this district we can give you connections only with X. But we have already connected them with Bogdan. They correspond with us regularly, they give us correspondences, in general this connection is very good. Indicate to us on your side where you have connections and what kind. This is also very important for us to know. Try to establish direct connections with us. It is necessary for us to conduct relations ourselves with various groups, to receive correspondences, reviews, reports on the state of affairs. This function "Iskra" must perform itself. Your function can consist only in the distribution of "Iskra"'s literature (which cannot be properly delivered), in collecting money, and in establishing new connections. This, of course, is also needed for "Iskra"; the last two functions are very important. We need money very much—Russia provides terribly little; do everything in this respect that you can. We cannot spend money on trips to establish connections. Of course, we need to give Bogdan 30 rubles monthly—he is a very useful person. As for the tea firm, we already have one, and two in the works. We cannot expend anything on this (for example, on a trip by Tsvetov, who is moreover occupied), we generally do not undertake to offer any assistance, but if someone offers at our disposal a shop requiring nothing from us in exchange, so much the better.

In Petersburg we have no representative; there is one old acquaintance who has offered his services in this respect (not the Director), but relations with him are proceeding rather slowly for now.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA — N. E. BAUMAN

30.
TO BERLIN
5/VII [1901 Munich].

1) Today we sent you 150 marks for journals.

2) Do not send literature to Bainoff. You can send literature to all the indicated places, but since it will not go through our representatives, it is necessary to receive payment for it in advance, at the rate: 1 copy of "Iskra," as well as one brochure = 40 pfennigs; "Zarya" and "Note" at 3 marks each, plus the cost of the suitcase; and in such remote places as Vyatka Province, you should not send exclusively new publications (for example, No. 5)...

In Vilno we have our own representative and it is awkward for us to send literature there without him. Therefore, propose to the one going to Vilno to do this: deliver the literature to our representative, at the address: X. Our representative will take half, the one traveling can take the other half (the latter can take it free of charge).

Have you received "Zarya" and "Note" from Dietz? We will send you "Red Banner"—200, the "Manifesto" and various publications of "Social Democrat" and "Workers' Cause"; we have quite a bit accumulated. We can also send "The Working Woman." Send us by all means a list of journals sent out recently.

I am sending you addresses for delivery of literature. Find out the surnames of those arrested in Samara. Send the brochure about ciphers.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA — M. G. VECHELOV

31.
18/VII [1901 Munich].

We received your letter. Inform us when exactly—specify the date precisely—can you go yourself or send someone for the suitcase (to Königsberg or Berlin). Then the literature received will have to be delivered to X at the address: ...

Do you know German at all, for you will have to deal with a German. Calculate what expenses each trip to Königsberg will take and inform us how frequently trips are possible. In case there is an occasion going to Berlin, here is the address (and password) for obtaining the suitcase. It is necessary to have things to fill the suitcase.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA and V. I. LENIN — X

32.
TO KHARKOV
[Between 18 and 27 July 1901 Munich].

Why have there been no letters for so long? How are things with the equipment? Why do you never send correspondence? Bear in mind that you will soon receive a letter signed Yablochkov, with the cipher "By the oak tree at the shore" (or "Schoolboy"). This person may also come to you. He is completely our man. Try to give him connections in ... with workers and intellectuals.

We received from you or from ... a note with an occasion and an address. We sent you a letter to this address, in which our message was conveyed in chemical ink. No answer. Probably you didn't receive it? Try as soon as possible to answer this letter and establish correspondence with us. Here is your address for us.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA and V. I. LENIN — L. N. RADCHENKO

33.
27/VII [1901 Munich].

Address for a trip to Königsberg. Ask him for X. He is our agent, to whom we have given your address and cipher. With this person you can arrange everything. You write it will cost 60–70 rubles—is this one or 2 trips? We have known X for a long time; he has just now undertaken to transport goods for us and has been carrying them for several months now. We have very little hope of success, as he probably does not know how to go about it properly and besides works more for the Latvians than for us. Therefore you must be careful when acquainting your Latvian with him. A mass of literature lies with him, we have spent a lot of money on his route, but with no result. What kind of man is your Latvian? Is he completely devoted to us? His plan regarding the establishment of a maritime route is good; perhaps this route could also be arranged via Königsberg? In any case, make every effort to get aboard a ship or find your own sailor. That would be convenient for us, as we have our own man there. Address for telegrams. Things in general are going well, but we cannot manage to set up our route; there is something in prospect, but for now these are still plans. Don't neglect suitcases: this is the best method for a periodic publication and we need to find more people for trips.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA and V. I. LENIN — X

34.
V. I. LENIN — S. O. TSEDERBAUM

TO VILNO
[July 1901 Munich].

We have just received a letter with the plan of Brother Pakhomy, Yablochkov, and Bruskov. We cannot conceal the fact that we not only cannot agree with any part of this plan (though the first could still be argued about), but were downright astonished by it, especially the second part: 1) to go all to Petersburg, to establish a district organ of the Russian organization of "Iskra." So astonished that we apologize in advance if in what follows too sharp a word slips through.

This is something incredible! After a whole year of desperate efforts, we have only just begun to group for this enormous and most urgent task a staff of leaders and organizers in Russia (this staff is still terribly small, as besides the three mentioned persons we have only 2–3 more people, and for an all-Russian organ we need not one dozen of such energetic contributors, understanding this word not only in a literary sense), and suddenly scatter it all again and return to the old artisanal methods! I cannot imagine a more suicidal tactic for "Iskra"! A district organ like the existing "Southern Worker"—this means, again to expend anew a mass of resources and people on editorial work, equipment, shipping, etc., and for what? For five issues in one-and-a-half years! And even that it will not achieve now for anything in one-and-a-half years, as the "Southern Worker" had the advantage that it was created by a Committee that was standing at the apex of its development, already formed—that is, an entire organization. But you...

# Letter 35

We sent a telegram—its meaning is clear—agreement. But bear in mind that telegraph communications [are] quite very *) dangerous, copies are made from telegrams. [Regarding the transfer of Iskra we agree, although, of course, in the beginning there should exist two editions. **)] [This time you made us telegraph without any necessity: restrict yourselves] Try to restrict yourself to the mail ***). There is no need to come for negotiations about details. Everything can be settled by correspondence ****). Do you have an experienced printer? If yes, then one can use matrices^2), which are easy to send ([the finished print, which can be sent] in journals, etc.). The advantages of this method: 1) there is no need to have type 1a) much faster *****) 2) fewer people—which means safer from a conspiratorial standpoint 3) the newspaper will have the appearance of a foreign publication, which again from the standpoint of conspiracy is much ******) more convenient.

For a trial, we shall soon send you matrices in a binding to the address K... ^3). Open them carefully, conduct all experiments and quickly inform us of the results. The "Universal apparatus for stereotyping," necessary for casting from matrices, costs approx. 300 marks, but whether it can be freely purchased in Russia, we do not know. Inform us, what format is your machine? Can one print in the format of our Iskra? In general, send as soon as possible some sample of your work.

If your technique is set up, try as soon as possible to publish at least one complete issue of Iskra (if it is difficult to publish in 8 pages, like no. 6, then publish at least no. 5—it is in 4 pages). It would be extremely important for us to have a copy of the Russian edition of Iskra by the local congress^4) here, that is, in a month (minimum 1½). 

From what date is the 800 rubles counted as owed? Our treasury is currently poor and this debt will be possible to cover only if your technique actually yields at least three—five thousand copies of Iskra (in 4—8 pages) per month. But if you succeed at this, then income, of course, will follow. *)

Where were the received parcels sent? Why send 5 puds to E[katerinoslav]? We do not dare send more than 1—2 puds the first time; it is better if it costs more. Can one designate in E[katerinoslav] "Bucher" **). How much time will delivery take? This is very important. Write addresses by separating words, otherwise one cannot understand where the name, where the city and street.

# Letter 36

Dear Comrade! You have certainly gladdened us with your parcel ^3)! It is done magnificently, this statement even [by] Ts[vetov]. You have misunderstood us. We were not at all opposed to the publication of Iskra in Russia; on the contrary, we fully recognize that the matter will gain tremendously from this, and we have always wanted it—only, we must admit, we had little faith in the success of the enterprise. You have now made us believe in it. We are sending you an article x, which is intended for the 2nd issue of Zarya^4), but in our opinion it will be very useful to publish it as a separate brochure; after reading it—you will probably agree with us. Print it in 1,000 copies. There will be no more delays with materials; set a deadline for when to send material for the next brochure. And then we shall already be sending material for the newspaper *). We repeat, you have made us extremely happy.

Regarding the fable about Veto there will be a note in no. 7,—it is all pure nonsense^5).

You are absolutely right when you write that Iskra must organize itself. You are only wrong in saying that it was necessary to leave an organization behind in Russia.

To do this, so to speak, in advance was unthinkable: only, when the matter is underway, can it become clear how the organization should be constituted. Now—you are right—there stands chaos (partly caused by the method of delivery); this is what most of our representatives write to us about. We think to do the following: send the organizational project we have worked out ^6) to Russia for discussion to 2—3 persons; with their help we shall work out the organization's charter. [If we cannot correspond, we shall bring out two (Leib and brother Pakhomy), we shall consult. We cannot arrange a congress now, nor can we go to Russia.^7)] We do not have the Odessa leaflets^8). Send them.

From his own observation, the new acquaintance ^9) who saw you here sends you threefold hurrah on the occasion of such success!!! *)

[Postscript by Yu. O. Martov.]

Pakhomy advises entering into agreement with Polya^10) and asks to connect him with her, giving the address Frau Bochart. Hemnitz Strasse 12. Berlin NW. On the second envelope: for Mme. Wamberg.

Write by chemistry in the old key.

# Letter 37

Dear Comrade! Forgive me for not responding immediately. I understood you to mean that the project Tagesordnung *) *) presented in your letter is not your final plan, and that you would send us a fully formed project. Evidently, I was mistaken (I conclude so upon reconsideration of your letter). Therefore, I respond to the main points.

1) Concerning the place. In June, Axelrod told me that in case of a congress in Z[urich], he would undertake to arrange such people as Alexander ^2). I think he will undertake to arrange this matter, which I shall write to him about. In any case, we stand for Switzerland **).

2) Concerning the time. We stand for the 20th of September—it is more convenient for all of us to free ourselves from work at this time.

3) Tagesordnung. Point 5 (confirmation of the red[action]), as a separate] point, is unnecessary, since the adoption of the organizational] agreement itself comprises the "confirmation of the redaction."

Moreover the word "confirmation" is not suitable, since authority to confirm cannot be possessed by a congress concluding a "contract," in relation to non-elected redactions. [(Such a [conclusion] standpoint] ***).

Nothing to object to regarding the regulation.

In § 5 of the regulation one should reduce Redezeit *) to 10 b[e]z[iehungs]w[eise] **) 5 minutes. In § 6 it should be said that each organization itself determines how from the votes of its members the vote of the organization is constituted (simple or qualified] majority and so on) ***).

I send reprints from no. 7, distributed in Russia in 300 copies] ^3).

In our Russian print shop, a very well executed 2nd edition of "W[oman]-W[orker]" came out. Unfortunately, we have only 1 copy, so we cannot send it.

Shaking your hand. Martov.

What about Danevich's article ^4)?

One must also clarify whether three organizations have the rights of §§ 3—4, 6? or four? |and "struggle" or without "struggle"?| **** ^5).

# Letter 38

The goal of the publication of Iskra is not only to write and print a newspaper; the goal is—with the help of the newspaper—to create an all-Russian organization, which would not retreat entirely into the interests of this or that district, but would have in view, first and foremost, the interests of the entire Russian party. This organization must link and unite the organizations working on the spot; it must serve as a connecting link. It must thereby create the possibility of planned and unanimous action by local organizations.

In view of this, Iskra stands in absolutely negative relation to the creation of special "district" organs and district organizations.

An all-Russian organization does not yet exist. It should begin with the organization of proper delivery of literature. For this to be possible, it is necessary to have as many connections as possible. Therefore one should not spare money for trips. One must ascertain the magnitude of demand in this or that place, stock up on addresses for collection, for sending literature by baggage. Establishing connections from beyond the border can only be done by chance, and therefore the work of establishing connections must lie almost entirely with the Russian organization. Likewise, entirely with the Russian organization must lie the work of distributing the literature received. It must distribute functions among itself, appoint people for delivery, a secretary, etc. We propose for discussion the following plan of the Russian organization:

Every m e m b e r of the Iskra organization must concern themselves: I) with furnishing the newspaper with all kinds of correspondence and information (correspondence should, of course, not only be purely work-related, but it is necessary that information be communicated about the state of affairs in the local organization, about the character of its activity, etc.; all current leaflets must be sent, etc.). II) with the collection of money for Iskra. III) with the widest possible distribution of "Iskra." For this, it is his obligation to concern himself with finding addresses for collection, for literature delivery, to ascertain the local demand, to find a person who could travel to the indicated place for literature, etc. A member of the Iskra organization must be connected: 1) directly with the redaction, [and] 2) with the district agent of Iskra. To the Redaction he reports everything relating to point 1 + a report of general character about his activities; to the representative of Iskra he delivers collected money, minus expenses for receiving literature, trips, etc.; with him he conducts all business concerning literature delivery.

If in one city there are several members of Iskra, it is desirable that they form a local group of Iskra, which would distribute among itself the indicated functions.

The agents of the Iskra organization maintain the closest relations with one another. Each of them takes upon themselves the supervision of one or another district. Besides this, it is necessary to distribute among them the following functions: a) it is necessary that a person, or several persons, living in one place receive information about what, where, and in what quantity has been delivered, and on the other hand, where and how much of what is required. This person must conduct correspondence with all agents and concern himself with uniform distribution by districts; b) directly with this person must be connected a person in charge of sending out literature by baggage throughout Russia; c) persons in charge of delivery of literature by districts; d) persons in charge of delivery of transportation to defined points.

# Letter 39

Now then this *). No union with the Union worked out. Just before the congress they released no. 10 of Rabochee Delo with 2 articles against Iskra, in which there was very sharply visible a turn toward opportunism^a). From these articles and from the speech of Krichevsky ^3) and from the amendments introduced by the Union to the resolution ^4), it immediately became evident that the difference in views was too great, there was no question of any close federation and further debates amounted to empty talk and hostile outbursts. Therefore Iskra and Sotsial-Demokrat left the congress, having first read a declaration ^5), in which they indicated the reason why these organizations consider union impossible and are leaving. The Union allies raised a cry; they shouted: down with the sectarians! this is an insult! we shall appeal to the court of committees, etc. Those who left the congress united into one organization: The Zagranichnaya Liga of revolutionary social-democracy. "Struggle" was wavering throughout and was offended and in the end did not join either side. In no organizational relations does the Struggle group now stand to Iskra.

We received the charter ^6), also Yakov's correspondence ^7), but did not receive photographs of documents^8). We agree with the charter in general; we do not insist on printing it. Let Yakov write whether he left a successor behind him ^), how matters stand with transportation. Also let him clarify what and to whom he said about Iskra's protest against Zarya's trip to Paris. We received several letters on this subject, the contents of which are incomprehensible to us ^10)). What is the matter? Makh ^11) asks to tell Yakov that he poorly deciphered the address and that people have been asking him (Makh) about you (?).

That in brief is the result of the congress. Comrades [who will pass through Petersburg on the 9th] will report details. Meet with the general and tell him that on the 9th *) comrades will arrive and arrange for them on that day a very conspiratorial meeting, with the general, you, and Yakov—this is extremely important ^12)).

# Letter 40

It is necessary for us to enter into direct and *) close relations with you. Inform us, have you entered into the Petersburg] Union on the basis of that contract, which was projected before^3), or has the original] project been changed? In the latter case, what changes have been adopted? We have been told that former members of "Socialist" have entered into your group. Does this mean that this group has ended its independent existence? Our org[aniz]ation can accept them only if they do not make attempts to resurrect themselves under another name. What are your relations with the Union? How does it regard the schism here and are you sufficiently informed about how this schism came about?

We expect detailed reports from you about the progress of Petersburg] affairs and about the affairs of your own group. How does the public (in particular, the workers) regard Iskra? How widely is it being distributed among workers? Try to send us correspondence and materials here. Send everything you can manage to obtain—demand from the Union that it give us all its leaflets. Provide information also about student affairs. Obtain addresses for sending Iskra in envelopes.

For our affair in Petersburg] to proceed in the direction in which Yak[ov] and his friend^4) intended to conduct it, it is necessary that our steps here and yours on the spot be strictly coordinated. We hope that before you adopt any important decision, you will consult with us, as Yakov did. Remember that the conquest of Petersburg at the present] time is the most important question for Iskra and that for this conquest great energy and great caution are needed. Whatever the composition of the Union, one must get along with it so long as this is only possible, so long as it refuses its economic sympathies. With other groups one should not enter into any obligatory relations without consulting us about the state of affairs, in order to avoid contradiction in the conduct of separate parts of the organization.

Be sure to inform us and inform us regularly what currents and to what extent are represented in the SPb. Union in general and in its center in particular; are there active and influential people, etc. We must be informed always in the most exact manner about the SPb. Union *).

# Letter 41

1) We have received nothing from Plekhanov; we have inquired^2).

2) The book was sent to the address x.; it contained the indictment in the Obukhovsky case with a request to print ^3) and a letter to you; two more letters were sent, one to x., another to y.^4).

3) We did not write anything about printing Iskra because you wrote that until the middle of November, because of a change of apartment, you cannot work on Iskra ^5).

4) To you have already been sent the first corr[ectional proofs] of no. 10; we shall send proofs; the issue is not compiled all at once by us, but as printing proceeds, therefore it is inconvenient to send it otherwise.

5) The organizational project was sent last summer to Leon and brother Pakhomy with a request to discuss [it] with comrades, to send their opinion, corrections, etc. Leon then replied that there is nothing new in this project, but that the whole matter is that there are no people. Now he has sent his own project, which consists in that Fekla should not meddle in anything, and that something like a southern organization be set up. He wrote that you held the same opinion^6).

It would be ridiculous to wish to direct all the details of the organization from here (although up to now we have received a whole series of inquiries precisely concerning a mass of details, for example, the famous "matter" about the disputes between Pasha and Natalka ^7) ). But Fekla, of course, cannot and never will renounce general direction of the Iskra organization. You know that Fekla's goal is not only to publish a newspaper, but by means of this newspaper to create an all-Russian organization, which would have in view not the interests of this or that district, but the interests of the entire Russian party; this organization must link and unite the organizations working on the spot, serve as a connecting link. It must thereby create the possibility of planned and unanimous action. From this it is clear that we have an extremely negative attitude toward any attempts to create local organs or special district organizations. At the present time, for the all-Russian organization as we conceive it, almost nothing has yet been done. One must begin with establishing connections and proper delivery of literature. Our comrades are doing very little to establish connections. Recently Pasha proposed to Fekla to concern herself with acquiring new connections. From here it is rather difficult to do this. It is necessary that our supporters do this, that they connect various points directly with us, that they clarify the magnitude of demand, etc. On the other hand, it is necessary to organize proper delivery of literature. From this standpoint, there is, indeed, complete chaos at present. But here, all that we can do is deliver literature; it is difficult for us to interfere in the distribution work. This must be done by the Russian comrades themselves. That is why we are very glad of the joining of your new group ^8)). Read to them from the letter what you find possible. We have therefore proposed to several of the freest comrades to constitute something like a committee, to enter into the closest relations with one another and jointly to discuss questions of distribution ^9)).

We are being proposed to set up a route via Greece—Piraeus. A steamship calls there on which our own man travels; he undertakes to arrange transportation ^10)). Is there not someone at your disposal in Piraeus who could meet with our man and hand over literature to him?

Answer as soon as possible *).

N. K. KRUPSKAYA
TO V. N. KROKHMÁL

8) The matter concerns a reprint from No. 9 of *Iskra*: "Indictment" in the case of the Obukhov defense, which was printed in the Kishinev printing house in 1901 as a separate pamphlet, with the appending of Lenin's article "New Massacre."

4) We do not have two letters on kh and u at our disposal; we have not established the names of the addressees.

5) The Kishinev printing house had to change quarters, as the owner of the first apartment suspected the group of people working at the printing house of being counterfeiters (see Goldman "Organization of the *Iskra* printing houses in Russia," — *Katorga i ssylka* No. 4 (17), 1925, p. 26).

6) We do not have the indicated letter of L. I. Goldman at our disposal. L. I. Goldman set forth his point of view at that time on the organization of *Iskra* in the article mentioned in footnote 5 (ibid., pp. 27-28); the project of the southern organization of *Iskra*, sent by Goldman on behalf of the comrades working in the south, is set forth in the "Report to the II Congress of the Organization of *Iskra*" (*Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya* No. 1 (72), pp. 158-159) as follows: "The Southern group proposes the following organizational plan: the group is completely autonomous in conducting all practical affairs, all connections in the southern region are in its hands; *Iskra* is printed in Russia, a finished-for-printing issue of *Iskra* is sent to the printing house, and it is produced in 2 thousand copies, which are distributed by the group in the south; transport exists for the conveyance of *Zarya* and pamphlets; the group assumes the collection of money and materials." According to O. B. Basovskii, this project was worked out in autumn 1901 in Kharkov; its authors were: O. B. Basovskii, V. N. Krokhmál, L. N. Radchenko.

7) The pseudonym Pasha was borne by L. I. Radchenko during her stay in Poltava, before her move to Kharkov in the summer of 1901; after Radchenko's departure, her "deputy" A. I. Shtessél remained in Poltava, who kept the pseudonym "Pasha."

A. I. Shtessél (Pasha) — Bolshevik, from the summer of 1901 to June 3, 1902, worked as a representative of *Iskra* in Poltava.

The pseudonym Natalka has not been established.

The content of the conflict between "Pasha" and "Natalka," which occurred in autumn 1901, apparently on the basis of the distribution of literature, is unknown to us.

8) Which group is in question has not been established.

9) The proposal to "constitute something like a committee" was made by Lenin to G. M. and Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky (see introductory remark to letter 48, p. 222).

10) It has not been established from whom the proposal originated to organize transport of *Iskra* through Peiraeus (Greece).

The letter of N. K. Krupskaya printed below exists in two variants: a) rough draft, kept in the archive of the Lenin Institute, and b) copy made from the letter in the police department. We print from the manuscript of N. K. Krupskaya.

42.
171¹

N. K. KRUPSKAYA — TO K. I. ZAKHAROVA
IN ODESSA.

[November 5, 1901. Munich¹)]

We received your detailed letter²), thank you for it. After all, it is terribly important to have an idea of what exists where and what is being done, and to have reports precisely in such a concrete form as you make them, whereas Pasha, for instance, has not written a single decent report on receipt and distribution, and then proposes to us to take care of establishing connections in the south. But for that, after all, one needs to know at least where what exists! Oh, that Pasha! I will answer your letter. We do not undertake from here to support the new group³) with money, of course. We have not yet received her letters. As for correspondence, we think it best to do the following. Let them write to us themselves about the group's affairs; this will be useful in the event of your exposure or departure, so that communications will already be established; but let them inform you each time of what they have written and show them our letters. With you, meanwhile, we will have a lot of business besides.

And here it is now. First of all: a) try to obtain an address—1) for money, 2) for letters, 3) for visiting. This is necessary. b) Write how much you need per month besides those 30 that you hope to obtain—for lodging, travel, dispatch, etc.? We will pay the Bulgarian⁴) from here. You each time inform us how much needs to be paid to him, and we will send it; this worry should be lifted from you. c) Will you undertake to arrange a large warehouse in Odessa? Pasha is too unenterprising and inaccurate to entrust this to her, and Odessa is the most convenient point for the Caucasus anyway. Just give the address for visiting as soon as possible. What to do with the literature—we will write when it begins to arrive. Both Londoners have been taken⁵), but we will write elsewhere and try to obtain for you a helper. I wrote about the congress. Everyone sends greetings. Who is waiting for the press? The new or old group?

N. K. KRUPSKAYA
TO K. I. ZAKHAROVA

1) This letter was registered in the police department under the date: "November 5, 1901."

2) We do not have K. I. Zakharova's letter at our disposal.

3) The "New Group" — this is the Southern Revolutionary group of social-democrats (October 1901—summer 1902), formed in Odessa from s.-d. propagandists dissatisfied with the economicist direction of the Odessa Committee. On November 13 (October 31), the group issued a leaflet in which it set forth its and the Odessa Committee's points of view on the three points on which they diverged: 1) on the essence of Russian autocracy (the new group upheld the position that autocracy has "independent interests, interests of domination and self-preservation," and is not merely "the resultant of forces existing in society," as the Odessa Committee asserted); 2) on the possibility of a broad underground factory-plant organization, and 3) on the development of a broad political movement among factory-plant workers. The question of the essence of autocracy was also brought to the congress of southern committees and organizations in Elizavetgrad by a delegate of the group, Yakov Shif, and the correctness of the group's point of view was confirmed by a resolution of the congress "On the Essence of Autocracy" (see the pamphlet "Report of the Congress of Southern Committees and Organizations of the R.S.-D.R.P." Published by the group "Struggle." Geneva 1902). The group included almost all the propagandists of the Committee: (D. Novomirskii, Y. Shif, M. M. Rost, S. Fichtman, A. Goldendakh, workers: Yu. Matlakhov, Lazurkin, Lashevich, Orzherovskii, and others). The group considered *Iskra* its ideological leader. The editorial board of *Iskra* expressed its attitude toward the group in the note "From the Editorial Board," placed in No. 17 of *Iskra*, of February 28 (15), 1902, and accompanying the correspondence "Odessa" describing the group's activities. "In placing this correspondence, apparently belonging to a supporter of one of the two Odessan social-democratic organizations, we, of course, leave the objectivity of the characterization of the Odessa Committee given by the author to his responsibility. For our part, welcoming the energetic initiative of the 'South Russian Group of Social-Democrats' in bringing a new current to the Odessan movement, we express the hope that the pioneers of political agitation in Odessa will be able to convince the comrades who disagree with their tactics of the success of their activities and thereby make possible the restoration of organizational unity among the Odessan social-democrats."

The group issued a series of political leaflets (two of them are printed in No. 17 of *Iskra*), conducted two street demonstrations on March 8 (February 23) and May 14 (1), 1902, as well as a manifestation in the theater on February 2 (January 20) protesting against the tsar's fraternization with the gendarmes, and drew wide layers of workers into the underground s.-d. organization. In summer 1902 the group, after a series of negotiations with the Odessa Committee, united with it (see the article by D. Novomirskii "From the History of the Odessan Underground" in *Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya* No. 4 (63), 1927, p. 181).

4) Bulgarian — I. Zakubanski, Bulgarian s.-d., worker; from autumn 1901 transported *Iskra* literature by steamship from Varna (Bulgaria) to Odessa; on December 14 (1), 1901, was arrested together with K. I. Zakharova; died in prison. (We do not have detailed biographical information about him. See about him in the book: K. I. Zakharova-Tsederba[u]m and S. O. Tsederba[u]m *From the Epoch of "Iskra,"* pp. 32-33.)

5) V. P. Nogin was arrested in Petersburg on October 15 (2); S. V. Andropov in Kazan on September 7 (August 25), 1901.

43.
18612

TO KIEV.

[December 18, 1901*)]

We received word that Akim is printing *Vpered*²). We refuse to believe this and ask for clarification—is this not a misunderstanding? That people who collected hundreds and thousands of rubles in the name of *Iskra* for the *Iskra* printing house—people forming the Russian org[anization] of *Iskra*—would secretly defect to another enterprise, and at precisely the critical moment for us, when transport has broken down, when the entire north and center (and south too!!) have inundated us with complaints about the absence of *Iskra* and when all salvation lay in reproducing *Iskra* in Russia—that people would do this in a deceptive manner, because Akim wrote us that he was printing "No. 10³) and we were certain of it, while Krasavets⁴) did not inform us with a word about his magnificent plans—we refuse to believe such an action, which violates not only all rules of organization, but also some simpler ones.

If this incredible news is true, then we demand an immediate meeting to settle this unprecedented breach, and for our part earnestly ask Yakov and Orsha⁵) to scrape together all and any money and immediately implement their plan—come here.

*) In the police department files (No. 825, part 2, l. 15-16) there is a letter from N. K. Krupskaya to I. G. Smidovich dated December 19, in which she writes: "I sent you a letter to Kiev yesterday. What you write about *Vpered* is simply outrageous..." The letter sent yesterday, i.e., December 18, was the Lenin letter printed here.

2) The newspaper *Vpered*—the local organ of the Kiev Committee, organized by M. Uritskii, in its direction close to economism. In the indictment in the case of the Kishinev printing house, in listing the material evidence in point 7, it says: "two wooden clichés: one for printing the heading 'Iskra,' the other cut and damaged, but from the letters remaining on it one can read the word 'Vpered.'" In the memoirs of L. I. Goldman: "In the Underground Printing House," printed in the Menshevik newspaper *Severnaya rabochaya gazeta*, in the issue of [May 5] April 22, 1914, it is confirmed that one issue—the eleventh—of the newspaper *Vpered* was indeed printed in the Kishinev *Iskra* printing house. L. I. Goldman wrote: ..."We printed [in the Kishinev printing house, Editor's note] a series of pamphlets, reprinted several issues of *Iskra* [that had failed at the border] [? according to our information, only No. 10 of *Iskra* was printed in the Kishinev printing house. Editor's note], issued several leaflets, and printed the 11th issue of the Kiev newspaper *Vpered*."

3) No. 10 of *Iskra* came out in November 1901. We do not have L. I. Goldman's letter.

4) Krasavets—the revolutionary pseudonym of V. N. Krokhmál in 1901-1903.

5) Orsha, apparently, L. N. Radchenko.

V. I. LENIN — I. G. SMIDOVICH-LEMAN

TO KIEV.

To Krasavets:

[December 1901. Munich*)]

Two members of the Kiev Committee¹) have addressed us (through Berl[in] and Axelr[od]*) with a proposal to send correspondence to *Iskra* (previously they sent to *Rabochee Delo*) and so on. They also ask to print in the form of an appendix a Kiev leaflet, which was intended as a separate appendix to the newspaper *Vpered* and approved by the committee. We, of course, are very pleased with new correspondents and any direct relations, but how could it happen that you—our representative—know nothing of this, so that people are forced to establish relations with us by roundabout means, bypassing you?

You never write how affairs stand in the committee, what it represents, what the mood in it is. You wrote nothing about the project for this leaflet.

Write all this in detail, as well as whether there was a "colleague"³), what he said, etc.

Also give an address for letters.

*) The date is established on the basis of the fact that this letter is written on the same sheet as another letter of N. K. Krupskaya to L. E. Gal'perin, in which "November 30" is mentioned in the past tense.

*) The words: "(through Berl[in] and Axelr[od])" are inserted by Lenin. Editor.

**) An undeciphered insertion by Lenin. Editor.

2) In the "Report to the II Congress of the Organization of *Iskra*," the appeal of 2 members of the Kiev Committee with a proposal to correspond in *Iskra* is recorded as follows: "In the month of November a circle of persons publishing the 'Flying Leaf' proposes collaboration to *Iskra*. 'Now,' they write, 'when we have refused to publish the 'Leaf' in Kiev, we could more properly organize the supplying of *Iskra* with correspondence. While still rendering what assistance we can to the distribution of *Iskra* (our circle made more than 100 rubles from its sale over two months, handed over to the committee), we think that by placing timely news from Kiev life, by sending reprints of Kiev correspondence, *Iskra* could acquire even greater popularity and interest among Kievans than now.' And the circle sends/a series of valuable correspondences, which were in due course placed in *Iskra*." (*Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya* No. 1 (72), 1928, p. 157.)

In No. 13 of *Iskra*, of January 2 (December 20), 1902, there is placed the correspondence "Strike of Tailors in Kiev (from the materials of the Flying L[eaf] No. 3)."

The 2 members of the Kiev Committee are not established.

3) "Colleague" is M. G. Kogan-Grinevich (also known as Kruglov)—s.-d., activist of the Union of Russian s.-d. Abroad and contributor to *Rabochaya Mysl*; lived abroad in Berlin, where he organized an s.-d. group "Vpered"; in October 1901 participated in the "unification" congress of foreign s.-d. organizations; at the end of the congress, which ended with the departure of the revolutionary s.-d. wing, K. was delegated by the Union of Russian s.-d. to Russia to tour committees for the purpose of agitation for the convening of the second party congress; in April 1902 participated in the Bialystok conference as representative of the Union of Russian s.-d., was arrested immediately after the conference; after the split in the s.-d. party worked with the Mensheviks; at present is abroad and working on the history of the Union of Russian s.-d. Abroad.

In the "Report to the II Congress of the Organization of *Iskra*" (*Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya* No. 4 (12) 1928, p. 459) there is cited in excerpts a December letter of Lenin to L. I. Goldman, in which Lenin set forth his attitude toward the proposed congress of *Iskra* supporters from the south (the congress took place later, apparently in the second half of January 1902 by the new calendar in Kiev; see *Katorga i ssylka* No. 4 (47) 1925, p. 27, almost simultaneously with the meeting of *Iskra* supporters in Samara, about which letter 48 speaks (p. 222). Lenin's manuscript of this letter has not been preserved, and for completeness of the material we are publishing in this correspondence, we print below Lenin's letter in those excerpts which are cited in the "Report."

In response to Goldman's invitation for someone from the editorial board of *Iskra* to come to Russia, Lenin, as is asserted in the "Report," proposed that "2-5 comrades from among the most active come abroad in order to confer about the best organization of *Iskra*-ites in Russia" (see "Report," ibid., p. 459, end of first paragraph).

45.

V. I. LENIN — TO L. I. GOLDMAN

IN KISHINEV.

[December 1901. Munich.]

... I have always said that the distribution of functions determines itself: here they publish literature and write articles for the newspaper, etc. In Russia—they distribute literature and establish connections. Transport is conducted by special persons, appointed by mutual agreement of those here and those there, and connected with both. Such is the ideal. ...

...We have long been troubled that the Russian organization (a matter of primary importance) is progressing slowly, and we—remember?—even sent you a "plan" last summer¹) (unfortunately, we do not have a copy of the letter in which this "plan" was developed), but you answered: "there are no people." Now you, presumably, have decided to undertake it²), and we are ready, of course, to help you in everything, if it depends on us. But our role here is altogether subordinate. You are connected with X. U. Z.³)—which means all "sources" of literature converge at you. Connect among yourselves and manage these sources: if you find people who are suitable for this and have earned your complete confidence, form a managing committee of them, by general agreement, and we, of course, will write to everyone we can to obey this committee. It is only necessary that the managing committee absolutely think of all Russia, not of one district, because all the future of *Iskra* depends on whether it will be able to overcome local artisanry and district isolation and become in fact an all-Russian newspaper...

*) See letter 38 (p. 196).

2) L. I. Goldman sent the editorial board of *Iskra* an invitation to a congress of *Iskra*-ites (see *Katorga i ssylka* No. 4 (17) 1925, p. 27, end of second paragraph).

3) Lenin points to the connection between the Kishinev and Baku printing houses of *Iskra* and the central transport organized by O. B. Basovskii.

46.
18641

1) Yakov¹).
2) Moscow] Com[mittee].
3) SPb + Nizhny.
4) Baku?
5) ("Letter to Russian s.-d. org[anizations]."

[Middle of December 1901. Munich*)]

We have just learned that the allies are organizing a conf[erence] of the most important com[mittees] to decide the question of the foreign conflict³).

It is necessary to make every effort to carry through in as large a number as possible of com[mittees] and groups the following measures:

1] The conf[erence] must absolutely be postponed at minimum until spring (until Easter, etc.). Motives: a) it is necessary to have delegates both from *Iskra* and from the foreign League, and this requires time and money. A conf[erence] without delegates from *Iskra* and the League is unlawful and meaningless. b) It is necessary to wait for the publication of pamphlets from both sides setting forth the essence of the disagreements. Before these pamphlets appear, the conf[erence] cannot judge with knowledge of the matter, and therefore its deliberations would hang in the air. *Iskra* in No. 12 (December 5*) 1901 is coming out) positively promises to issue this pamphlet very soon (in about a month and a half)⁴). There all disagreements will be analyzed in great detail. We will show there all the perniciousness of the direction of the *Rabochee Delo*, will expose all their shameful shakiness and helplessness before Bernsteinism and economism. This pamphlet is already partly ready and is moving rapidly toward completion. Then at the present time (December 7* n.s.) references about disagreements are being read abroad: one by a representative of *Rabochee Delo*, another by a representative of the League. These references too will appear in print very soon, and to call a conf[erence] without waiting for them means throwing money away and making sacrifices in vain.

2) We will send a sp[ecial] representative to the conf[erence], if it takes place. Therefore it is absolutely necessary to inform us immediately (1) whether the conf[erence] is appointed; (2) where; (3) when and (4) the password and address for the conf[erence]. It is necessary to formally demand from com[mittees] and groups notification of these facts under threat of declaring the conf[erence] unlawful and immediately publishing that they wish to decide matters without hearing [one] both sides.

3) If committees or groups will elect representatives to the conf[erence] in favor of *Rabochee Delo*—it is necessary immediately and formally to protest against this and demand representatives both from supporters of *Rabochee Delo* and from supporters of *Iskra* (respectively: from the majority and from the minority).

4) In the event that the conf[erence] expresses itself against *Iskra*, it will be necessary to w[ith]draw from the committees and groups which will not agree to protest publicly against this—to w[ith]draw and immediately publish in *Iskra* about this withdrawal and the motives. Those people should begin right now to arrange among themselves for such a step.

5) Inform us immediately of the result and inform of all steps at once. Make every effort so that [members of Russian] supporters of *Iskra* everywhere join together and act unanimously.

1) The five following points are inscribed in the manuscript in Lenin's hand in pencil and apparently designate places for sending this letter. The last point 5, taken by Lenin in quotation marks, gives the title of a letter sent from Russia by one of the representatives of *Iskra*. This letter is printed in full by Lenin in his article "Conversation with Defenders of Economism" in No. 12 of *Iskra*, of December 19 (6), 1901 (Works, vol. IV, p. 339-341). By citing this point, Lenin had in mind the representative of *Iskra* who sent him the indicated letter. The latter has not been established by us.

2) The date is established from the indication in the letter: ..."at the present time (December 7* n.s.)."

3) By "foreign conflict" Lenin has in mind the withdrawal of revolutionary s.-d. from the October "unification" congress of foreign s.-d. organizations and the formation of the Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy. *Rabochee Delo* sent M. G. Kogan to Russia to tour "important committees" for the purpose of agitation for the immediate convening of the second party congress, for the purpose of ensuring at the congress representation from supporters of *Rabochee Delo*. Taking into account the growing influence of *Iskra* on s.-d. committees in Russia, the "allies" hastened the convening of the congress. As is known, the "congress," recognizing itself as a conference, took place on April 5-10, 1902 in Bialystok (see below, p. 225).

4) In No. 12 of *Iskra*, of December 19 (6), 1901, there is placed Lenin's article "Conversation with Defenders of Economism," in the conclusion of which Lenin promises to issue "in about a month and a half" a pamphlet with a detailed analysis of the questions touched upon in the article. The pamphlet about which Lenin speaks—*What is to be Done?* Burning Questions of Our Movement by I. Lenin. Stuttgart. Publishing house J. H. W. Dietz Nachf (G. m. b. H.). 1902 came out around March 20, 1902.

47.
18637

TO KISHINEV.

To Akim.

[January 3, 1902. Munich¹)]

We received your gift²) and were extremely pleased. Meyer³) simply could not get enough of the newspaper. Only why so few copies? In the north, as I have already written more than once, the demand is enormous—Moscow alone requires a minimum of 2,000, and meanwhile transport has so far only served the south. Write, please, in what time frame No. 10 was prepared and in what time frame you can generally*) prepare an issue of 4 pages? It is very important for us to know this. By all means write and more accurately**).

We are very pleased that in the incident with *Vpered* you took the proper point of view and acted as you should. In principle we have nothing against reprinting such pamphlets as "Spiders and Flies," but in this case it is not worthwhile, since it has already been done by the horses⁴).

On the other hand, it would be very good if your technique could be adapted to printing appeals and leaflets. This is especially important in such heated moments as now.

The trouble is that there is no one in Russia who could head the editing of leaflets, but we think that, generally speaking, one can print leaflets of local organizations of *Iskra* under the signature "local organization of *Iskra*," one can also print leaflets of friendly committees, if there is nothing inappropriate in them*) (you yourselves will be able to decide this).

It is only necessary to establish relations. Give some address by which the Moscow representative⁵) could correspond with you (and through him the entire central district). It may be necessary to connect you with someone else.

Do you consider it necessary to keep secret the fact of the existence of a Russian printing house of *Iskra* **) i.e., are you opposed to us widely sh[owing] a Russian copy abroad?

As for the general disorder of our affairs, about which you, according to the words of a person who saw you recently⁶), so bitterly complain—we can help little here. It is necessary for the Russian members of the org[anization] of *Iskra* to form a solid nucleus and to achieve proper distribution of *Iskra* throughout Russia. This is entirely the business of the Russian org[anization]. If we achieve this, then the affair is secured. Without this—disorder is inevitable***). In the interests of proper distribution and prestige it is extremely important to print *Iskra* in Russia every 2-3 issues, selecting issues with more permanent interest. For example, No. 13*), perhaps, should have been.

But if you are already printing, print in a much larger number of copies: it is necessary at least once to try to satisfy all Russia. Remember how you yourself complained about small distribution?

Again, best regards and congratulations on success!!****)

3/1. We received from Kiev a correspondence with criticism of the committee's actions. The correspondence points out (1) insufficient awareness by the committee (there were arrests on the night of December 1-2***** and the committee cannot clarify, among whom and on what occasion), its slowness. (2) It was necessary to issue a leaflet to workers in which they would be informed about student unrest and explained how workers should conduct themselves. The committee agreed that such a leaflet was necessary, but did not issue it in time. We intend to place this correspondence in No. 14⁹), which will come out in 10 days. Therefore, upon receiving this letter, answer immediately*), do you not have anything to object to regarding both facts, or send your account of the circumstances connected with these facts. The correspondence] is generally interesting, but we would not want to place criticism of the actions of a friendly] com[mittee], without learning its opinion. We earnestly ask you to hurry.

*) The date is established by the second postscript of N. K. Krupskaya, dated January 3.

2) "Gift" is No. 10 of *Iskra*, printed in the Kishinev printing house.

Judging from the indictment in the case of the Kishinev printing house, two issues of *Iskra* were printed there—8 and 10. According to the "Report to the II Congress of the Organizations of *Iskra*" —only one No. 10 (see *Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya* No. 1 (72), 1928, p. 151).

3) Meyer—Lenin's pseudonym, which he used in 1900-1902; the origin of the pseudonym apparently is connected with the surname Rytmeyer, in whose house Lenin lived in Munich (without registration) from September 1900 to April 1901.

4) The pamphlet "Spiders and Flies. Translated from German"—a widely distributed agitational pamphlet at that time by one of the founders of German social-democracy—Wilhelm Liebknecht, father of Karl Liebknecht. It was reprinted by the Baku printing house in 1901 from Nos. 4-5 of *Rabochee Delo* (came out at the end of December 1899) as a separate pamphlet.

5) The Moscow representative of *Iskra* was at that time N. E. Bauman.

6) This person could be O. B. Basovskii.

7) Dementyev—the revolutionary pseudonym of O. B. Basovskii in 1901-1903.

O. B. Basovskii organized in August 1901 in Kiev an expedition for *Iskra* literature arriving from abroad. Through this expedition also all that was printed in the Kishinev printing house was directed to the places. (Regarding this expedition see "Report to the II Congress of the Organization of *Iskra*" *Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya* No. 1 (72) 1928, p. 152, second paragraph from below.)

8) In No. 13 of *Iskra*, of December 20, 1901, there is a leading article by Lenin "The Beginning of Demonstrations" (Works, vol. IV, Giz. 1927, p. 345), and detailed descriptions of demonstrations that occurred throughout Russia are placed. No. 13 of *Iskra* was not reprinted in Russia.

9) In No. 14 of *Iskra*, of January 14 (1), in Plekhanov's lead article "On Demonstrations," excerpts from this letter are cited.

*) From here further to the end is in Lenin's hand in black ink. Editor.

The letter printed below is taken from the police department file No. 825, part 4, l. 6-7; the letter has a notation from the police department: "Copy of a letter, signed 'Bulka,' thrown into a mail car Moscow—Samara, of January 30, 1902 to Becker. Hamburg. Weddel. Wilkelmsbergerstr. 45."

The letter reports on the results of a congress of *Iskra*-ites in Russia. This congress, according to Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky, took place in Samara and, judging by the date of this letter, occurred in the first half of February (before February 12) by the new calendar. The history of this congress is as follows.

As is known, in the second half of January in Kiev there also occurred a meeting of agents of *Iskra*, who worked mainly in the southern district of Russia: O. B. Basovskii, L. E. Gal'perin, L. I. Goldman, V. I. Krokhmál, I. G. Smidovich-Leman (sent to the meeting by the editorial board of *Iskra*) and, according to some sources (according to L. E. Gal'perin and V. N. Krokhmál)—I. E. Bauman from Moscow. The correspondence preceding this meeting of Lenin with the "southerners" (see letters 56 and footnote 7 to it; 58; 44 and footnotes 6 and 9 to it, 45 and the introduction to it) reveals certain moments of divergence in the resolution of organizational and practical questions between Lenin and *Iskra* workers in southern Russia. The latter found it more practical to build the Russian *Iskra* organization by districts (see letter 44, footnote 6), whereas Lenin persistently and repeatedly demanded orientation toward all-Russian work: "It is necessary... to think of all Russia, not of one district" (letter 45, p. 245). The inconvenience of building organization by districts was evident from the example of literature distribution: literature received by the "southerners," placed in a more favorable position due to proximity to the western border, fell to the south, while the north (Petersburg and the central industrial district) remained neglected and besieged the editorial board of *Iskra* with complaints about the absence of literature (see "Report to the II Congress of the Organization of *Iskra*," *Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya* No. 1 (72), p. 452, second paragraph from below). In his December letter to L. I. Goldman, who had invited the editorial board of *Iskra* to send representatives to the meeting of the "southerners," Lenin proposed to arrange this meeting abroad, so as to be able to directly influence the direction of the meeting. Besides, in October 1901, Lenin entrusted G. M. and Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky with organizing a central bureau of the Russian Organization of *Iskra*. In the "Report to the II Congress of the Organization of *Iskra*" (ibid., p. 464) it is recorded: "Meanwhile in October of the same month a comrade [G. M. Krzhizhanovsky. Editor's note] came from Russia to see the editorial board of *Iskra*. This comrade had until that time for various reasons stood outside practical activity, but all the more keenly was he interested in the ideological struggle which *Iskra* was waging. During his stay abroad with him there were also many conversations on the theme of the necessity of creating an "Organization of *Iskra*" in Russia; organizational plans of *Iskra* were developed in conversations with him." The content of Lenin's conversations with G. M. and Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky and the circumstances under which they took place (i.e., whether they were in any way formalized, whether other members of the editorial board were present in the conversations, etc.) are unknown to us.

According to Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky, she and G. M. traveled together with Lenin to Zurich, where the "unification" congress of foreign s.-d. organizations took place, and then set out for Russia (see letter 39, footnote 72, p. 200). Having visited the place of their exile in Siberia, G. M. and Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky, in accordance with the arrangement with Lenin, then settled in Samara, where they convened that congress of *Iskra* workers, from which Lenin traces the beginning of the Russian Organization of *Iskra*; "Jan[uary] 1902 (foundation of the organization of *Iskra*)" (see Lenin. "Notes for the Report at the II Congress of the R.S.-D.R.P. on the Activities of the Organization of *Iskra*" — *Leninskii Sbornik* VI, p. 68, and "Report to the II Congress of the Organization of *Iskra*," *Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya* No. 1 (72), p. 464).

Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky recalls the following participants of the congress: V. P. Artsybugiev, Z. P. and G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, F. V. Letnik, G. I. Okulova. According to her, a significantly larger number of *Iskra*-ites participated in the congress, whom she could not remember. The congress named the organization it created "Central Committee of *Iskra*." In the "Report to the II Congress" N. K. Krupskaya—the author of the "Report"—replaces this name with—Organization of *Iskra*.

There is no manuscript of Lenin's letter in the archive of the Institute regarding the results of the Samara meeting of *Iskra*-ites, but it is cited by Krupskaya in her "Report" (ibid., p. 462):

...Your initiative made us terribly happy. Hurray! Precisely so! Take more broadly! And act more independently, more actively—you are the first to begin so broadly, so the continuation will be successful!

48.
Z. P. KRZHIZHANOVSKY — TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD 
OF *ISKRA*
IN LONDON.

[February 12] January 30 [1902. Samara.]

We await answers from you on all the queries already sent to you¹). But meanwhile I inform you of the following step in our activities. A meeting took place at which the following questions were raised and discussed: 1) Election of members of the Central Committee of *Iskra*. 2) Distribution of roles. 3) Relations. 4) Treasury. 5) Relations with local committees and groups. 6) Relations with local organs. 7) Relations with congresses of committees.

I) Sixteen members of the Central Committee were elected. I will report the names later, when I have the cipher at hand²). Each member is concerned with choosing himself a candidate in case of exposure. The number of members of the C.C. can be increased only with the knowledge and agreement of the entire C.C.

II) It was decided to disperse to different places: 2—to the south, 2—to the middle belt of Russia, 4—to the east, 2—flying agents, one—to the north. The roles of the remaining members have not yet been clarified. A secretary of the C.C. and his assistant were elected³).

III) Relations are conducted in two ways—by letter and through flying agents. The secretary is obliged every two weeks, on the basis of the news he has received during that period, to send bulletins about the progress of affairs to each member of the C.C. and to foreign comrades; these latter have the archives of all the information. Flying agents and the remaining members of the C.C. must inform the secretary of each change in their address. The wish was expressed to arrange a congress of members of the C.C. this summer. A congress in spring at your place was considered somewhat premature.

IV) Treasury. Each member is bound to organize money collection. Part of the money is sent to *Iskra*, about the rest the secretary is informed. To the secretary all requests for lack of means in one place or another are submitted, and he, having in his hands data on the condition of all treasuries, can mobilize sums.

V) Relations with local committees. Each member of the C.C., when arriving in a given place, must strive to acquire the greatest influence there and have as the final goal the joining of the given committee to the organization of *Iskra* and its recognition of *Iskra* as the party organ. For this purpose he: 1) enters autonomously into the local group, offering it services in the delivery of literature, newspaper, in printing proclamations, declarations, etc., 2) if, despite all efforts, the Committee remains hostile—he forms his own group and his own local committee.

VI) Relations with local organs. Taking into consideration: 1) the small number of literary forces and monetary means, 2) the instability of direction, depending on the random composition of the local group, 3) the lack of durability in existence and irregularity of publication of local organs, 4)*) the discord that could arise in the party thanks to the division of forces, 5) the diverting of forces from all-party work and narrowing them to purely local affairs—it is recommended that each member of the C.C. relate negatively to the existence of local organs and try to concentrate all forces for the solid establishment of an all-party group, as the only means to the practical and theoretical unification of the acting groups.

VII) Inasmuch as mechanical union of acting groups, not guaranteeing unity of action and direction, threatens to remain purely f[iclitious] and can discredit the party in the eyes of its supporters and opponents by the complete absence of all-party actions, the arrangement of a congress for the purpose of unification is at present considered undesirable.—Conclusion in the next letter⁴).

Bulka⁵).

*) In the copy made in the police department, point 4 is missing. Editor.

1) We do not have the previous letters of Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky. Editor's note.

2) We do not have a letter from Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky with a report of the names of members of the Organization of *Iskra*.

3) "Secretary of the C.C."—the secretary of the Russian Organization of *Iskra*—was elected Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky.

Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky (Bulka)—s.-d.-Iskra-ite, secretary of the bureau of the Russian Organization of *Iskra* in 1902; in 1894, upon completion of higher women's courses, joined the Nizhny Novgorod s.-d. group; in 1895 in Petersburg joined the s.-d. group "Starikov," founders of the Petersburg Union for the Liberation of the Working Class, and worked in the Vasileostrov district; after the arrest of the main workers of the group on December 21 (9), 1895, entered the central nucleus of the group; in June 1896 was arrested; in April 1897 was exiled to Nizhny Novgorod until the end of the case; in March 1898 was exiled to Siberia (Minusinsk, Nizhne-Udinsk, Taiga) for 3 years; at the end of her exile, in September 1901, traveled with G. M. Krzhizhanovsky to Munich; in October 1901 left for Russia; at the end of 1901 settled in Samara; in February 1902 participated in the congress of *Iskra* workers, at which she was elected secretary of the Russian Organization of *Iskra*; in summer 1903 moved with G. M. to Kiev, led correspondence about the C.C.; after the second congress of the party, joining the Bolsheviks, conducted secretarial work in the C.C. of the party; on January 14 (1), 1904 was arrested and six months later was released; at the end of 1905 worked in the Bolshevik organization in Petersburg; from 1910 in Moscow. In recent time worked in the scientific-political section of GUS.

With approximate accuracy it can be said that the remaining 15 members of the Organization of *Iskra* were as follows: "assistant secretary"—M. I. Ulyanova; two members intended for work in the south: F. V. Lennik and R. S. Zemlyachka (?); two members—in the middle belt of Russia: E. V. Karamzin and G. I. Okulova; four members—in the east: V. I. Artsybushev, K. K. Gazenbush, his wife (?), and G. M. Krzhizhanovsky; two members—"flying agents": I. I. Radchenko and M. A. Silvin; one member—in the north: P. N. Lepshinsky; three members with unclear roles: L. M. Knipovich, P. A. Krasiков and D. I. Ulyanov.

4) We do not have the "next" letter of Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky.

5) Bulka—the revolutionary pseudonym of Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky in 1902-1903.

Below we place a letter from an unknown author to us, written in the name of the Petersburg Union of Struggle, in which the latter informs the editorial board of *Iskra* of the appointment of a "party congress" for April 3 (March 24), 1902. Lenin was informed about the congress organized by the Union of Russian s.-d. Abroad and the Bund around December 15, 1901, and at that time outlined a plan of campaign for *Iskra*-ites in Russia (see Lenin's letter, p. 244). This notice was received by Lenin on March 3, 1902 (see Works, vol. V, p. 66).

On March 5, 1902, Lenin wrote the "Report of the Editorial Board of *Iskra* to the Meeting (Conference) of Committees of the R.S.-D.R.P." (ibid.), in which he expressed protest against the replacement of the plan to arrange a conference with the plan to convene a "party congress," arguing that the list of questions presented by its architecture and editing produces the impression of "economism," and proposed the following agenda: 1) Principled resolution; 2) the second regular congress of the Russian S.-D.R.P.; 3) elections of the C.C.; 4) election of a commission for working out a draft of the party program; 5) Central Organ; 6) preparation of a list of questions for the party congress and reports on them; 7) current practical questions of the movement (May leaflet, May demonstration, preparation of party members for political actions—boycotts, demonstrations, popular uprising—and various financial questions).

To the report Lenin appended a draft of a principled resolution (ibid., p. 72). The representative from the editorial board of *Iskra* (officially from the Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary S.-D.) who went to the "party congress" was F. I. Dan, who brought with him several copies of Lenin's newly issued pamphlet *What is to be Done?*

The "Conference of Representatives of Committees and Organizations of the R.S.-D.R.P." took place in Bialystok from April 5 (March 23) to April 10 (March 28), 1902. The conference was convened at the initiative of the Bund and the Petersburg Union of Struggle. At the conference seven organizations were represented: C.C. of the Bund (P. I. Rozental), Petersburg Union of Struggle (V. P. Krasnukha and A. M. Zeldov), Union of Southern Committees and Organizations (O. A. Ermanskii), Ekaterinoslav Committee (F. I. Shipulinskii), Union of Russian s.-d. Abroad (M. G. Kogan-Grinevich, also known as Kruglov), editorial board of *Iskra* (F. I. Dan).

A total of six organizations with seven delegates (four of the delegates—Rozental, Ermanskii, Kogan, and Dan—were arrested immediately after the conference). According to materials from the Bialystok...

[EDITORIAL MATTER]

From the materials published in "Proletarskaya Revolutsiya" No. 9 for 1922, pp. 245–250, it is evident that the Bund's Foreign Committee was the seventh organization represented at the conference. According to the memoirs of O. A. Ermansky ("From what I lived through," Giz. 1927, p. 58), in addition to the persons we have named, there was also K. Portnoy from the Bund's Central Committee at the conference. A letter from Dan about the results of the Bialystok conference (preserved in the archives of the Lenin Institute) confirms that there were two representatives from the Bund's Central Committee, and their voting on certain questions was not always unanimous. Whether one of the two aforementioned persons (Rosenthal and Portnoy) represented the Bund's Foreign Committee, or whether, in addition to these two persons, there was also a member of the Bund's Foreign Committee, A. Kremer (see note k to Vol. V of Lenin's Collected Works, p. 402) at the conference—remains unestablished.

On the proposal of F. I. Dan, it was decided: 1) to declare the congress a conference, 2) to accept a common party May leaflet, and 3) to create an Organizational Committee to convene the second congress of the party. The composition of the Org. Committee included: F. I. Dan, O. A. Ermansky, and a delegate to the conference who represented the Bund's Foreign Committee (K. Portnoy or A. Kremer?). In the event of arrest of members of the Org. Committee, the right to restore the Org. Committee was granted to "participants" of the conference.

The letter printed below is taken from the file of the Department of Police No. 825, part 8, sheets 6–7.

49.

PETERSBURG COMMITTEE—TO THE UNION OF RUSSIAN S.-D. ABROAD
IN BERLIN.

[26 (13) February 1902. Petersburg.]

Did you receive the letter in which you were informed of Anosov's arrest *). The party congress 2) will begin on Thursday, 21 March *) 3). It was decided to invite one representative each from you and from *Iskra*. Convey to *Iskra* our invitation on our behalf, and tell it that we shall write to it separately.

Take all measures so that the broad public does not learn of the forthcoming congress. The program of the congress has not yet been worked out in detail, but the following questions have been outlined: A) Economic struggle and means of struggle (strikes, boycott, demonstration, economic terror). B) Political struggle and means (demonstrations, terror: offensive and defensive). C) Political agitation. D) May First. E) Relations to oppositional elements. F) Relations to revolutionary groups not entering the party. G) Organization of the party. 3) Central organ and foreign representation and foreign party organizations.

We need an illegal library for the intelligentsia. Compile and send it, but compile it better than the last time. That one does not withstand criticism. All the best.

x) N. A. Anosov (d. 1918)—S.D., economist; from 1898 a member of the Union of Russian S.-D. Abroad; from 1897 studied at the Berlin Polytechnic; here he entered M. G. Kogan's economic group "Forward"; in autumn 1901 was a member of the Petersburg Committee; arrested 17 (4) December 1901; later worked in Ekaterinoslav, Kazan, and elsewhere.

2) [The reference is to the Bialystok conference.]

3) The Bialystok conference, as is now established from Department of Police files (see the article by A. Ilyin-Zhenevsky, "The Second Congress of the Party and the Petersburg S.-D. Organization" in *Krasnaya Letopis* No. 2 (26) for 1928, p. 17), opened only on 5 April (23 March). The representative of the *Iskra* editorial staff—F. I. Dan—due to confusion in addresses (confusion partly intentional on the part of the Union of Russian S.-D.)—arrived at the conference only on 7 April (28 March).

50.

1369

TO PSKOV.

5/V [1902. London].

Yesterday we received a letter from Vardo from the local bookseller Brodkorb*) (recommended last year by the exile Mayer). He undertakes to obtain literature and transmit it with necessary precautions to our man. The man from the "Nikolay" should himself go to him, take the literature, and pay money, at 10 rubles per pood. We are changing the password, since Brodkorb probably does not know Russian: "ich bin der Freund von Herrn Anders" *). It is inconvenient to entrust delivery to Brodkorb on the "Triphone." Report 1) whether the password was conveyed; 2) **) whether literature is being sent, and 3) **) if yes, then by what date and how much. Report more precisely: it is necessary to fulfill conditions punctually ***). Brodyagin 2) is intact, but arrests have been made in Voronezh: Karpov, Lyubimov, Korostsenkov 3). There were arrests in Yaroslavl too 4). Write. Did not write to Arkady 5) through Tamara 6).

Received statistics. Heartfelt thanks. Send more materials on the assessment of lands of Vladimir province, vol. 5, issue III. 1901 (Gorokhovaya district)—and other volumes too. ****)

*) Brodkorb—bookseller in the border Norwegian town of Vardo on the Arctic Ocean; B. transmitted the Iskra literature he received to Russian steamships "St. Nikolay" and "St. Triphone," which transported it to Arkhangelsk.

*) —"I am the friend of Mr. Anders."  
Red.

**) The words: "1) whether the password was conveyed; 2)" and the numeral "3)" were inserted by Lenin. Red.

***) The entire phrase from the words "Report more precisely" was inserted by Lenin. Red.

****) The last paragraph was written by Lenin. Red.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA AND V. I. LENIN—TO P. N. LEPESHINSKÝ AND I. I. RADCHENKO

N. K. KRUPSKAYA AND V. I. LENIN  
TO P. N. LEPESHINSKÝ

2) Brodyagin—the revolutionary pseudonym of M. A. Sylvin in 1902.

3) Y. Ya. Karpov (1879–1921)—S.D.-Iskraist, one of the organizers of the Northern Union, professional revolutionary, major party worker and major chemist; in 1896 K. entered Moscow Technical School; here K. connected with Moscow S.-D. and participated in organizing the Moscow Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class; in March 1898 K. was arrested; after nine months in prison K. was exiled to Kursk under special police surveillance, and a year later, of his own volition, moved to Voronezh; here K. met V. A. Noskov, A. I. Lyubimov, F. I. Shchekoldyin, N. N. Kardashev, D. V. Kasterkin and other members of the under-surveillance S.-D. colony known in the history of our party as the "Americans," and participated in organizing the Northern Union; K. together with this work continued his further theoretical education; 13 April (31 March) 1902, at the collapse of the Northern Union, K. was arrested; transported to Moscow, K. sat in the Taganka until winter 1902; the gendarmes got nothing out of K. and his comrades, who refused to give testimony; released in winter 1902, K. came to Voronezh, but in 1903 K. was already in Kiev, where he joined the Kiev Committee of the R.S.-D.R.P.; in autumn 1903 K. was arrested again; after two months' imprisonment as an agent of the Central Committee, K. together with I. F. Dubrovsky organized the eastern bureau of the Central Committee in Samara and in Poltava; already after Samara, K. organized an illegal printing shop; in summer 1904 K. was co-opted as a member of the reconciling Central Committee; summoned to a meeting of the Central Committee in Moscow, K. was arrested together with the entire Central Committee at the apartment of the writer Andreyev on 22 (9) February 1905; the party decided to free the arrested Central Committee members by means of a tunnel; work on preparing the escape was already finished when the revolution freed K. and his comrades from prison; in the "days of freedom" K. worked on organizing a laboratory of explosives in Finland; in August 1906 K. worked in Moscow as secretary of the Moscow Committee of the R.S.-D.R.P.; in 1907 K. was arrested again and expelled from Moscow to his homeland; K. illegally returned to Moscow and completed higher technical school in 1910; K. attracted the attention of learned chemists with his works and discoveries; these works and discoveries in the camphor-turpentine industry gave K. the name of a scientist and immediately thrust him into the front ranks of Russian chemists even in tsarist times (directorship at factories in Vyatka and at the Bondyuzh factory); devoting himself to scientific work, being a director and organizing the chemical industry, K. did not abandon revolutionary work, sometimes organizing illegal trade unions, sometimes conducting propaganda, sometimes taking part in organizational work; from 1918 K. was a member of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the National Economy and head of the department of chemical industry.

A. I. Lyubimov—S.D.-Iskraist, member of the Northern Union, after the second congress—Bolshevik. (For biographical information on L., see "Lenin Miscellany" V, p. 582.)

Korostsenkov is erroneously the name given to D. V. Kasterkin (d. 1906)—S.D.-Iskraist, member of the Northern Union. (We were unable to gather biographical data on K.)

4) [The reference is to the collapse of the entire organization of the Northern Union, which occurred in April–May 1902 through the agency of provocateur Menshchikov (see O. A. Varentsova, "Northern Workers' Union," *Proletarskaya Revolutsiya* No. 9, 1922, pp. 34–39).]

5) Arkady—the revolutionary pseudonym of I. I. Radchenko.

I. I. Radchenko (b. 1874) (Arkady, Kasyan)—S.D.-Iskraist, member of the Russian *Iskra* Organization, professional revolutionary; in May 1902 R. by order of the *Iskra* Organization settled in Petersburg, where he conducted work to win over the Petersburg S.-D. organization to the side of *Iskra*; in early July 1902 through the efforts of R., the Petersburg Union (Committee) created a commission on reorganization of the Committee; R. entered the commission and worked out a plan for its work on eliminating cottage-industry methods and creating a single center, which was adopted; R. insisted that the Committee in principle break with handicraft-ism; after the August 1902 conference in London (Lenin, Noskov, Krasnukha, and Krasikov), which created an unofficial nucleus of the Org. Committee, R. took active part in work on restoring the Org. Committee; on 11 September 1902 R. left Petersburg, leaving E. D. Stasova as his deputy; the bureau of the Russian *Iskra* Organization entrusted R. with uniting in his hands all the transport of *Iskra* literature. With this task R. traveled to a number of S.-D. organizations (Baku, Batumi, Kharkov, Poltava, Moscow, Pskov, Petersburg, Libava, Orel, Kiev, and others), conducting at the same time work on uniting these organizations around *Iskra*; around 15 November 1902 at the Pskov conference, which constituted the Org. Committee, R. was elected a member of the Org. Committee; 17 (4) November 1902 R. was arrested in Pskov. (For detailed biographical information on R., see "Lenin Miscellany" V, p. 590.)

6) Tamara—the conspiratorial nickname of V. I. Kuryatnikov, a clerk in the store of B. K. Schwartz at M. Morskaya, 16 in Petersburg; K. had a contact point to I. I. Radchenko; the contact point was discontinued in September 1902 when it was established that K. during interrogation at the security police had betrayed I. I. Radchenko.

The directive letter of Lenin printed below, written for the Russian *Iskra* Organization, is a plan of a campaign to prepare local S.-D. organizations for the second congress of the party; "...remember the paramount significance of the second congress!" —Lenin writes in this letter. In the period from May to November 1902 (collapse of members of the Org. Committee—Iskraists) members of the *Iskra* Organization (I. I. Radchenko, M. A. Sylvin, P. A. Krasikov, F. V. Letnik, G. M. and Z. P. Krzhizhanovsky, P. I. Lepeshinský, R. S. Zemlya­chka, E. D. Stasova, L. M. Knipovich, G. I. Okulova, E. V. Karamzin and others) worked intensively in Russia to create a cohesive majority in local S.-D. committees that would carry out the programmatic, tactical, and organizational principles of *Iskra*. This period (May–November 1902) was saturated with fierce struggle between Iskraists and Economists for organizational predominance in local committees. Particularly acute struggle flared up in the Petersburg S.-D. organization, where the organizational principles of Economists were strong and there existed a division of the organization into an intelligentsia and a working section.

As a result of the work of the Russian *Iskra* Organization, resolutions of solidarity with *Iskra* "on questions programmatic, tactical, and organizational" appeared on the pages of *Iskra* from the following committees: Tver (*Iskra* No. 24, of 14 (1) September 1902), Petersburg (*Iskra* No. 26, of 28 (15) October), Moscow (ibid.), the "Southern Worker" group (with reservations) (*Iskra* No. 27, of 14 (1) November), Kharkov (*Iskra* No. 28, of 28 (15) November), Nizhny Novgorod (*Iskra* No. 30, of 28 (15) December), Saratov (*Iskra* No. 34, of 14 (1) January 1903), Ufa (*Iskra* No. 35, of 14 (1) March), Siberian Union (ibid.), Tula Committee (*Iskra* No. 37, of 14 (1) April), Irkutsk (ibid.), Odessa (with reservations) (*Iskra* No. 38, of 28 (15) April), Committee of S.-D. Union of Mining and Factory Workers (Southern Russia) (*Iskra* No. 40, of 28 (15) May).

51.

1370

V. I. LENIN—TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
IN SAMARA.

6/V [1902. London].

Received your letter 1). The tree, apparently, has been taken. Claire must absolutely save himself and for that must immediately go underground. A meeting with Sasha (about whom the tree managed to write to us) led to the appointment of a commission to convene the congress in five months 2).

Now our main task is to prepare this—that is, so that completely our people penetrated into as large a number of committees as possible and tried to undermine the southern Central Committee of the southern committees (= the spinning top) 3). This "spinning top," which the Comrade *) . . . **) (who is even accused by someone of being a provocateur, which has not yet been verified) controls—is the main obstacle. (Plus Petersburg too.) Therefore the immediate task: that Kurtz-[Embrion] both at once enter committees 5). . . *) Then so that Claire and Brodya[gin] follow their example in one form or another. This is the main task, because otherwise we shall inevitably be squeezed out: subordinate everything else to this task, remember the paramount significance of the *second congress*! Adapt to this too . . . **) and think through an attack on the center and Ivanov and others. Urals and south. Now the formal side acquires paramount significance.

Brodya[gin] suspects provocation 6). That cannot be here, we are already in London 7). It is very likely that many threads were picked up from several of our arrested people—that explains everything 8). Guard yourselves as the apple of your eye—for the sake of the "main task" 9). If we (that is, you) do not master it, then it will be quite a disaster.

Immediately forward this entire letter to Brodyagin and tell him that he absolutely must write to us and more often: all his letters have arrived perfectly.

*) Against the words in capital letters in the manuscript, Lenin wrote: "cipher." Red.

**) Several words heavily crossed out in ink remain illegible. Red.

If it should be confirmed that the tree has perished, then we with Claire or Brodya[gin] need to see each other as soon as possible or correspond very thoroughly; if there are excellent addresses for sending you all the details about Sasha (i.e., address for *) binding—send it as soon as possible).

Do not rely on us regarding the passport; do it yourself. Should not Claire exchange places with Brodya[gin], since everyone already knows him?

Who will be the *delegate* from Moscow? Absolutely reliable? Does he have a good successor? So: again and again: *enter the committees*. Is Nizhny reliable? 10)

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

Now about current matters. 1) We have already written to [Mitya] the youth 11) and linked him with Kherson 12), who will probably be able to provide a connection both to the Odessa Committee and to the Central Committee of the southern region. A password was given to Dnestr[ovskaya] 13). We have known of Todorka for a long time 14).

2) We have also written to Embrion.

3) The Horses 15) responded. The typogra[phy] . . . **) matter, but does not work yet. Its owner 16) went to Russia for negotiations. I am afraid he will conclude a contract with the Southern Worker (No. 7 of the Southern Worker was printed in their typograph). I gave the horses your address, the key to them—Lermontov's "Duma." I asked them to inform you as soon as possible of the address for a contact point and connection with Batumi. Try to meet with Nipa's father 17) and come to an agreement. Their address***). When you send the address for the book—we shall inform all the details of setting up the matter.

4) We now have nothing against the Nizhny Novgorod typograph 18). We have already written about property; we shall probably also be able to obtain a person for the typograph. Send someone to Nizhny (Bulochkino), preferably Arkady [but not to the detriment of his work!] ****), since he is already somewhat acquainted with this matter; let him inform whether it is worth beginning the matter.

5) Not knowing how the situation stands with Dementievich's 19) route and not knowing what to do with urgent transport, [we] wrote so that he would deliver to D'eté, and we wrote to Pete so that he would take part of it to the old woman 20) on the way, and part hand over to Kh[arkov] and Krasavsk 21). From Brodyagin's letter it is evident that this order makes no sense.

6) Let Brodyagin and Arkady not be disturbed by large expenses; they are, after all, necessary.

7) Do not write to Leman, as letters there lie for a very long time.

*) In a letter of 25 (12) April, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky reported on the results of the Bialystok conference.

2) The Tree—the revolutionary pseudonym of F. I. Dan in 1902.

Claire—the revolutionary pseudonym of G. M. Krzhizhanovsky.

G. M. Krzhizhanovsky (b. 1872) (Brute, Claire)—S.D.-Iskraist, leader of the Russian *Iskra* Organization, subsequently a prominent Bolshevik activist. (For biographical information on K., see "Lenin Miscellany" VI, pp. 210–211.)

Meeting with Sasha, or Sasha—the conspiratorial designation of the Bialystok conference.

F. I. Dan was arrested on 17 (4) April 1902 in Moscow at the station upon arrival from Yaroslavl, where he had encountered the provocateur Menshchikov. Participants of the Bialystok conference, except for delegates from Petersburg: V. P. Krasnukha and A. M. Zeldov, were arrested, and the second congress took place not in five months but only in July–August 1903.

3) In January 1902 in Elizavetgrad a congress of representatives of southern committees and organizations was held, convened by the editorial staff of the *Southern Worker*. The congress was attended by representatives from: Ekaterinoslav (delegates: R. S. Galbershadt and Krasnoshchekin), Nikolaev (Sternberg), Odessa (from the Committee—Bronstein and S. Zborovsky, from the group—Y. Shif), Kharkov (O. A. Ermansky), Kishinev (A. A. Kvyatkovsky). The editorial staff of the *Southern Worker* was represented by A. M. Ginzburg and B. S. Zeitlin. At this congress it was decided to create a Union of Southern Committees and Organizations of the R.S.-D.R.P., to elect a Central Committee of the Union (A. M. Ginzburg, O. A. Ermansky, and B. S. Zeitlin) and to declare the newspaper *Southern Worker* the regional organ (such, in fact, was only No. 8 of the *Southern Worker*, February 1902). Soon after the congress, in the same place, Elizavetgrad, A. M. Ginzburg and B. S. Zeitlin were arrested. O. A. Ermansky managed to hide from arrest and represented the Union at the Bialystok conference. After O. A. Ermansky's arrest on 19 (6) April, the southern Central Committee was liquidated and the Union of Southern Committees and Organizations of the R.S.-D.R.P. ceased to exist.

4) Comrade—the pseudonym of O. A. Ermansky.

O. A. Ermansky (b. 1866 or 1867) (Comrade)—S.D., southern worker, subsequently a Menshevik; from 1891 to 1895 he was abroad, where he was closely connected with the "Workers' Cause"; from 1899 he worked in the Kharkov S.-D. organization; in 1900 he wrote the pamphlet "May Days in Kharkov," published by *Iskra* in 1901; in 1901 he entered the editorial staff of the *Southern Worker*, on which he acquired great influence; in January 1902 he presided at the regional congress of southern committees and organizations, to which he was delegated from the Kharkov Committee; at the congress he was elected together with B. S. Zeitlin and A. M. Ginzburg to the Central Committee of the Union of southern committees and organizations; participated in organizing the Bialystok "congress"; 5–9 April 1902 was a delegate from the Union of Southern Committees and Organizations at the Bialystok conference; 19 (6) April 1902 E. was arrested in Elizavetgrad and in May 1903 was exiled to Yenisei Province for 6 years, from which in September 1903 he escaped abroad together with F. I. Dan and A. M. Zeldov; abroad he joined the Mensheviks. Currently works in scientific and educational institutions of the USSR.

From where the accusations against O. A. Ermansky of being a provocateur came is not established. One must think that they were caused by the fact that E. escaped the collapse that befell the other members of the Central Committee of the Union of southern committees and organizations in January 1902. E. himself in his book "From what I lived through" (Giz. 1927, p. 56) explains this circumstance by the fact that his position as a railroad engineer, which allowed him to travel in courier trains, gave him the opportunity to hide from the eyes of detectives. In any case, soon the subsequent course of events (arrest, exile, and escape of E.) completely dispelled any possibility of such accusations and proved the complete party integrity of O. A. Ermansky.

5) Kurtz—the revolutionary pseudonym of F. V. Letnik in 1902–1904.

F. V. Letnik (b. 1873) (Zarin, Kurtz)—S.D.-Iskraist, member of the Russian *Iskra* Organization. (For biographical information on L., see "Lenin Miscellany" VI, pp. 211–212.)

Embrion—the revolutionary pseudonym of E. V. Karamzin.

E. V. Karamzin (1867–1920) (Embrion)—S.D.-Iskraist, member of the Russian *Iskra* Organization; after completing Kazan Teacher's Institute in 1891–1892, already a Marxist, worked in circles of students and folk teachers; in 1892 K. was arrested and after prolonged imprisonment in 1894 was exiled under police surveillance to Voronezh; in 1897 K. was arrested again for S.-D. propaganda among workers; in 1898 K. was exiled to Siberia to Minusinsky District, where together with Lenin's group, among 17 people, signed the famous protest against "Credo" by Kuskova and Prokopovich; in 1901 K. settled in Saratov; from April 1902 K. worked in Saratov as a member of the Russian *Iskra* Organization.

In the present letter Lenin demanded that F. V. Letnik enter the Kiev Committee and E. V. Karamzin enter the Saratov Committee.

6) Brodyagin—M. A. Sylvin wrote to Lenin on 27 (14) April 1902 from Smolensk and, unable to explain the cause of numerous arrests, expressed the supposition (not confirmed) that provocation had penetrated the foreign *Iskra* Organization (letter of M. A. Sylvin, see in archive notebook No. 1412).

7) The arrival of Lenin and N. K. Krupskaya in London, to which the *Iskra* editorial office was transferred, took place on 14 April 1902.

8) In March 1902 addresses of the *Iskra* editorial office were seized and deciphered by the Department of Police from O. S. Bluemenfeld, arrested at the border.

9) The main task—organization of the second congress of the party.

10) Subsequently delegates from Moscow to the second congress of the party were B. S. Zeitlin (at the congress—Belov) and N. E. Bauman (at the congress—Sorokin). A delegate from Nizhny Novgorod to the congress was V. A. Desnitsky, but upon crossing the border he was arrested and did not participate in the congress.

11) Mitya and the youth—thus they called D. I. Ulyanov in the correspondence.

D. I. Ulyanov (b. 1874)—S.D.-Iskraist, member of the Russian *Iskra* Organization; first arrested in 1897 for S.-D. propaganda among workers in Moscow; from 1900 until the second congress of the party worked in the Russian *Iskra* Organization: in April 1901 moved to Odessa for work; in 1903 was a delegate at the second congress of the party from the Tula Committee; in early 1904 was arrested in Kiev; in 1905–1906 worked in the Simbirsk Committee of the party; subsequently, working as a zemstvo doctor, conducted work in Bolshevik party organizations. Currently works as a member of the board and doctor at the Sverdlovsk Communist University.

12) In Kherson, the Iskra group of S.-D. worked on transporting *Iskra* through Alexandria (in Egypt), headed by brothers L. D. and N. D. Tsyrupov.

13) Dnestr[ovskaya]—dental doctor in Odessa, at whose address was a contact point to the Odessa Committee.

14) Todorka—the revolutionary pseudonym of K. I. Zakharova in 1901.

Zakharova was arrested in Odessa on 14 (1) December 1901.

15) Horses—the conspiratorial name for the Iskra S.-D. group in Baku, which worked on organizing transport of Iskra literature from abroad and at the Baku typograph (see letter 13, note 3, p. 137).

16) The owner of the Baku typograph is called by N. K. Krupskaya in this and subsequent letters V. Z. Ketskhveli.

V. Z. Ketskhveli (d. 1903) (owner of the Baku typograph, father of Nina)—S.D.-Iskraist, organizer of the Baku typograph; in 1895–1897 organized an illegal circle of students which included among others I. Stalin and A. Enukidze; at the end of 1899 K., as organizer of the first Tiflis tram workers' strike, had to hide from Tiflis, moving to Baku; here K. conducted work in workers' circles; in May 1901 K. conceived of organizing in Baku an illegal typograph (conditionally named Nina) for reprinting *Iskra* and its publications; in early August 1901 K. together with A. S. Enukidze equipped the typograph on Vorontsovskaya Street in the house of the Tatar Ali-Baba; in this same period K. conceived of organizing the publication of an illegal organ in the Georgian language, "Brdzola" ("Struggle"); about this publication K. conducted negotiations with the Tiflis organization about material support for the publication; at the end of December a package with matrices of *Iskra*, which arrived in the name of the dental doctor Ginzburg, was arrested at the customs; fearing exposure, the "horses," under K.'s leadership, in March 1902 shut down the typograph and engaged in organizing transport through Batumi; the *Iskra* editorial staff planned to move the typograph to Russia; to find a suitable place for the typograph K. in April 1902 left for Russia; having traveled to several cities, visited Kiev and Samara, K. in August 1902 returned again to Baku; K. rented an apartment on Chadrovaya Street in the house of the Muslim Dzhiora and with the help of A. Enukidze and B. Bakradze moved the typographic press from storage; in moving the last batch of type, Bakradze spilled it at Baku freight station and was arrested; the same day, 15 (2) September, K. was arrested, and that night A. Enukidze, having managed to save the typographic machine, was arrested; both were sent to Tiflis to Metekh Castle; 30 (17) August 1903 K., while in conversation with comrades through a window, was killed by a sentry.

17) Father of Nina—so N. K. Krupskaya calls V. Z. Ketskhveli.

18) In Poltava there was equipment for an illegal typograph. G. M. Krzhizhanovsky in his April 1902 letter (arch. No. 1368) asked: "What do you think about moving Akula [typograph. Red.] here?" In the present letter the *Iskra* editorial staff spoke in favor of setting up the typograph in Nizhny.

19) Dementievich—Dementiev—the revolutionary pseudonym of O. B. Basovsky in 1901–1902.

20) Old woman—the conspiratorial name for the Moscow Committee.

21) Krasavsk—the conspiratorial name for Kiev.

52.

1368

TO SAMARA.

23/V [1902. London].

Received a letter from Kurtz *). We most earnestly ask that he write more in detail about his trip to Kiev. Did he meet with the committee people? What sort of people are they there? Recently they issued a nonsensical leaflet calling on workers to conduct a demonstration silently, without singing revolutionary songs and without banners 2). It is necessary that Kiev have its own person. If Kurtz's stay is only for financial reasons, then let him take money from the treasury, but to leave Kiev without one's own person is simply unthinkable. It is necessary to have there such a person who could appear as a delegate from the committee at the congress; we have already written in detail about this in the previous letter 3). Did you receive it?

The meeting with Sasha ended quite sadly. Besides the tree, which is sitting in Moscow (he got into it well, his letter to Tyapkin 4) was taken), the Comrade, the foreign representative of the union, and the Bundist 5) were taken. Of the persons elected to the commission on preparing the congress, only the Bundist 6) remained, and we shall direct him to you. You will have to occupy yourself with preparing the congress together with him, but with him you must conduct diplomacy and not open all your cards.

In view of the terrible pogroms and in view of the formation of a new party (Socialist-Revolutionaries) 7) we are now thinking about unification. The Bund after the meeting with Sasha changed course and inclined toward *Iskra*; the union members too are talking about unification. Keep all this in mind. Of course, this does not in the slightest change the necessity of the tactics about which we wrote last time, the necessity of conquering the committees. Why do you write so little? Is Brodyagin alive? Does Mitya, Embrion write you? What happened to Jehovah 8)? Where is Glatt 9)? Write about everything in as much detail as possible.

Do you know that the Moscow Committee collapsed, with only Pakhomia's sister 10) remaining? Are you connected with her? 2) Dobrovolsky *) 11), about whom we wrote, has already been arrested. 3) The typograph is intact, but cannot work because all those who worked in it have been arrested 12), there is no money, etc. Only one person remained 13). We are directing him to you. He will call himself "Father of Nina."

Right now several people are leaving for Russia: two workers-Jews 8) (may be useful for obtaining passports), the wife of the tree 14), and then Dimka and Boris Nikolaevich 15).

From Poltava they are asking you to write so that you would send as soon as possible an address for sending a receipt for things sent to Samara by slow freight back in early April 16). The address for letters to Poltava from Russia is as follows *). But why did you do that—send it as baggage—that is inviting exposure.

Then let Brodyagin or someone else meet with Bakunin 17). We wrote about him to Moscow, but our letter apparently arrived after the collapse.

[Postscript by V. I. Lenin **)]

So your task now is to create from yourselves a committee for preparing the congress, to take into this committee a Bundist (evaluating him from all sides—NB!), to slip your people into as large a number of committees as possible, preserving yourselves and your own until the congress as the apple of your eye. All this is of paramount importance! remember this. Be bolder, more audacious and inventive in this, but in everything else be quieter and more careful.

Be wise as serpents—and gentle [as doves].

Your old friend.

*) Letter of F. V. Letnik of 12 May (see archive notebook No. 1368).

2) On 3 May (20 April) 1902 the Kiev Committee issued a leaflet "To all Kiev working women and workers" with a call for a demonstration.

Here is what was set forth in this leaflet: "On Sunday, on 21 April, we too shall show the strength of our organization, we too shall throw in the face of capitalists and their flunkies—the tsar's autocratic government—our mighty challenge. In orderly masses, awesome in our silent calm, we shall walk along the Kreshchatik. We shall bring with us our wives and elders; let no one remain home on this solemn day... we shall walk silently from 2 to 4 o'clock in the afternoon along the Kreshchatik between the Duma and Funduklevskaya without banners and without singing revolutionary songs. And if some madman or spy, contrary to our decisions, violates the orderliness and solemnity of the manifestation, we shall not follow his example; we shall continue solemnly and silently the awesome procession," etc. This call for a "demonstration of awesome silence" was subsequently fiercely mocked in party circles.

Lenin wrote a letter about this leaflet that caused displeasure in the Kiev Committee. Lenin's letter was not found.

3) N. K. Krupskaya is referring to Lenin's letter to Samara of 6 May (p. 232); the delegates of the Kiev Committee to the second congress were: P. A. Krasikov and the worker Nikitin.

4) Tyapkin—the pseudonym of Lenin in the close circle of his comrades in work in the circle of "elders," founders of the Petersburg Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class.

The mentioned letter of F. I. Dan is preserved in the archives of the Lenin Institute.

5) The foreign representative of the Union at the Bialystok conference was M. G. Kogan-Grinsvich.

The Bundist arrested following the conclusion of the Bialystok conference was the representative of the Bund's Central Committee—N. N. Rosenthal.

6) The Bundist elected to the commission on preparing the congress has not been established.

On the basis of the present letter by N. K. Krupskaya, one can suppose that the member of the Org. Committee from the Bund was elected not N. N. Rosenthal, as O. A. Ermansky suggests in his book "From what I lived through" (Giz. 1927, p. 59), but one of the Bundists remaining free—K. Portnoy or A. Kremer? (see introduction to letter 49, p. 226).

7) Circles of Socialist-Revolutionaries began to arise from the second half of the 1890s, alongside circles of Social-Democrats, in all intellectually rich centers of Russia (Petersburg, Kiev, Saratov, Minsk, and others), and also abroad. In 1900 among these circles a tendency toward unification appeared. Emerged: "Northern Union of S.-R." (center Saratov), "Southern Party of S.-R." (center—Kiev), which issued in November 1900 a "Manifesto," "Workers' Party of Political Liberation of Russia" (center—Minsk) and others. Abroad, from 1894 the "Union of Russian S.-R." operated (center—Paris), which published the newspaper *Russian Worker* (from 1894 to February 1899, 11 issues were published) and pamphlets of the "Socialist-Revolutionary Library." In July 1901 the first issue of the theoretical journal of the S.-R., *Messenger of Revolution*, under the editorship of K. Tarasov-Rusanov, came out (three more issues were published: No. 2 in February 1902, No. 3 in March 1904, No. 4 in March 1905). In autumn 1901 the gendarmes liquidated the S.-R. organization in Russia. With the help of Breshko-Breshkovskaya and Gershuni, by early 1902 the remnants of S.-R. organizations connected with each other, created a Central Committee of the S.-R. party abroad and declared the newspaper *Revolutionary Russia*, published in Russia by the "Northern Union of S.-R." (at this time two issues appeared: No. 1 of January 1901, No. 2 of May 1901), to be the organ of the S.-R. party. The editorial staff of the organ was transferred to M. R. Gotz and V. M. Chernov. No. 3 of *Revolutionary Russia* appeared in January 1902, in which the unification of S.-R. organizations was announced. This last fact is what N. K. Krupskaya has in mind when speaking of the formation of a new party.

8) Who is in question is not established.

9) Glatt—the revolutionary pseudonym of G. I. Okulova.

G. I. Okulova (b. 1878) (Glatt, Zaychiк)—S.D.-Iskraist, member of the Russian *Iskra* Organization; first arrested in 1896 for participation in a student demonstration in memory of victims of the Khodynka disaster at Vagankovsky Cemetery in Moscow; in December 1896 was exiled to her homeland in Minusinsky District, Yenisei Province; in 1897–1898 connected with the exile group (V. I. Lenin, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, V. V. Starkov, N. K. Krupskaya, Z. P. Krzhizhanskaya, and others); in February 1899, upon completion of exile, worked as a propagandist in the Kiev S.-D. organization; in summer 1900 was in Ufa with N. K. Krupskaya, who directed O. to Poltava to Yu. O. Martov; from September–October 1900 O., by order of Martov, worked in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, where with a group of workers she had propagandized, constituted the Ivanovo-Voznesensk Committee; after May 1, 1901 O.'s stay in Ivanovo-Voznesensk became impossible because of surveillance; O. left for her homeland; from autumn 1901 O. worked as a member of the Kiev Committee; 22 (9) February 1902 O. was arrested for participation in a street demonstration on 15 (2) February; lacking evidence, O. was soon released and exiled to Chernigov; in April 1902 O., by order of the bureau of the Russian *Iskra* Organization, conducted organizational negotiations with the Buzuluk and Saratov committees; in September 1902 O., going underground, was sent by order of the bureau to Moscow as a representative of the *Iskra* Organization; in December 1902 O. was co-opted to the Org. Committee to oversee the financial section of the Org. Committee, but on 22 (9) December 1902 was arrested; in September 1903 O. was exiled pending trial to Yakutsk region; in spring 1904 O. received a sentence: 5 years in Yakutsk region; returning by amnesty of 1905 to Russia, O. worked in the Petersburg Bolshevik organization; currently heads the Faculty of Political Education Work of the Academy of Communist Education.

10) The Moscow Committee collapsed on 4 May (21 April) 1902; among those arrested were: L. M. Khinchuk, A. Savikov, and several days later—20 (7) May—L. O. Kantsell-Tsederbaum.

Pakhomia's sister—this is L. O. Kantsell—S.D.-Iskraist, subsequently a Menshevik, from spring 1902 worked in Moscow as an agent of *Iskra*. (For biographical information on K., see "Lenin Miscellany" VII, p. 142.)

11) A. P. Dolivo-Dobrovolsky (1876–1904) (Dno)—S.D.-Iskraist, professional revolutionary; in 1895–1896 was a member of the Councils' Council of 15 united student societies in Moscow; in 1896 was arrested for participation in student disorders in Moscow; in 1897 was exiled to Samara Province under police surveillance for 3 years, from there soon transferred to Astrakhan, where he connected through L. M. Knipovich with *Iskra*; in autumn 1900, enrolling as a student in the Demidov Law Lyceum in Yaroslavl, organized several workers' circles at the former Korzinkin, now Big Manufactory—"Red Breakthrough"; in spring 1901 was arrested and exiled for 3 years to Orenburg; in spring 1902 D.-D. was preparing, going underground, to leave for work in Petersburg, but was arrested, brought to Moscow, and charged in the case of the Northern Union; in summer 1902 was again sent to Orenburg, from where in autumn of that year he escaped abroad; at the end of January 1903 he came together with M. M. Essen to Petersburg and was introduced to the Petersburg Committee by the *Iskra* Organization; in the Committee at this time a struggle was occurring between "intelligentsia" and "workers," supported by "Economists"; D.-D. together with M. M. Essen and A. E. Rerikh conducted negotiations with representatives of the Workers' Organization; as a result of negotiations a general Committee was created, into which D.-D. entered; the intrigues conducted by Economists against the Iskraists, inciting workers against them, forced D.-D. soon to "voluntarily" withdraw from the general Committee; in mid-February 1903 at a plenary meeting of the Org. Committee in Orel, D.-D. was confirmed as second candidate of the Org. Committee in case of the collapse of any member of the Org. Committee; on 10 March (25 February) 1903 D.-D. at a meeting of the Petersburg Committee suddenly went mad, imagining that the autocracy had fallen; while efforts were being made to place D.-D. in a hospital, he was arrested; in April 1903 D.-D. was placed in a hospital; in June 1903 D.-D., having recovered from the nervous shock, was released, left for Odessa and in December 1904 shot himself.

12) 22 (9) February L. E. Galperin was arrested in Kiev; after the May demonstration in Baku, A. S. Enukidze and other members of the Baku Committee were arrested.

13) V. Z. Ketskhveli escaped arrest from the case of the May First demonstration in Baku.

14) Wife of the tree—this is V. V. Kozhevnikova (by marriage Gurvich) (b. 1873) (wife of Victor, wife of Gurvich, wife of the tree, wife of So-and-so, colleague of the hare, Natasha)—S.D.-Iskraist, subsequently a Menshevik; in 1894–1895 was a peripheral worker of the Petersburg Union of Struggle; in early 1901 was implicated in Petersburg in the case of the "Workers' Banner" and "Socialist" groups; in winter 1901 worked in the *Iskra* editorial office in Munich as technical secretary of the editorial staff; on 12 September 1902 came from abroad to Moscow under the pseudonym "Natasha" with the aim of influencing the Moscow S.-D. organization in the direction of *Iskra*; K.'s first letter to the *Iskra* editorial office from Moscow of 16 (3) September 1902 to the address of E. Shedlich was registered in the Moscow security police (with the help of the provocateur Serebryakova); the same happened with all subsequent correspondence of K.; almost simultaneously with K., the Russian *Iskra* Organization sent to Moscow for the same purpose G. I. Okulova; as a result of the work of K. and Okulova, the Moscow Committee in October 1902 sent a sympathetic statement to *Iskra*; in early December 1902 K. was arrested and in 1903 was exiled for 6 years to Eastern Siberia; in 1904 went into hiding; worked in Menshevik organizations.

15) Boris Nikolaevich Glebov—the name under which V. A. Noskov lived abroad in 1902.

16) The reference is to typographic equipment exiled from Poltava to Samara.

17) A. I. Bakunin, nephew of Mikhail Bakunin, doctor; rendered essential assistance in distributing *Iskra* in Russia; stood close to the Tver S.-D. organization, had extensive connections among liberals; currently lives in Paris.

53.

1433

TO PETERSBURG.

Letter of Lenin.

[22 June 1902. London *)]

Right now I gave the Bundist *) 2) a contact point—Tamara-Kuryatnikov—to you. This is for the congress matter. You with him (+ bureau or whoever else) must form a Russian committee for preparing the congress. Be suggestive and careful. Take more districts upon yourselves, in which you undertake to prepare the congress, refer to the bureau (calling it something else); in a word, do it so that the entire matter is completely in your hands, while the Bundist for now confine himself to the Bund. We shall begin here a series of negotiations about local rapprochement and shall inform you at once.

So, for now—outline the composition of the "Russian committee for preparing the congress" most advantageous for us (perhaps it will be convenient to say that you have already formed this committee and are very glad of the Bund's participation or something like that): Be sure to take the secretaryship in this committee. These are the first steps. Then we shall see.

*) N. K. Krupskaya wrote above the word "Bundist" in ink (the text of the letter is written by Lenin in pencil): "Boris"; the following words from further in the text of the letter were marked in the same ink for encipherment: "for the congress matter," "bureau," "form a Russian committee for preparing the congress." Red.

**) The words "Tamara-Kuryatnikov," and then below the words in parentheses, and the entire end of the text of the letter, beginning with the phrase "But all this more carefully, without arousing objections," are crossed out in the manuscript in pencil, apparently during encipherment of the letter. Red.

V. I. LENIN AND I. I. RADCHENKO

V. I. LENIN

I. I. RADCHENKO

I say "sketch" the composition so that you have more freedom: don't bind yourself immediately before the Bund (you could say, for example, that contact has been established with the Volga, the Caucasus, the center — we have one person from there — and the south — two of us are traveling there)) *) and make yourself master of this enterprise. But all this more cautiously, not arousing complaints **).

Mark down — is your role clear to you? We might still manage to write to each other.

Send without fail the weekly newspaper properly to Roegner's address: we need the most precise correspondence. And we would like to send a weekly special journal: give us quickly the address of the doctor, the engineer, the cyclist, the artist, etc. or the like.

Yours entirely...

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

22/VI. Meet, please, immediately with Sergei Natanovich Bernstein. His address: Pushkinskaya 16, apt. 29 (Margarite Nikolaevna Margulis4), password: I brought you a book by Novogorodtsev). He is temporarily in Petersburg, then goes to Odessa, where he intends to work and can take literature with him. A very capable fellow; Nakhomiy saw him and advises us to use him. Meet immediately. Through him get in touch with his sister Margarita Nikolaevna Margulis, she will be very useful through her connections and money (one only needs to approach her with knowledge and caution). Her address and password to her are the same, but she is now at her dacha.

So, meet with him. — Why have we heard nothing from you for so long? Is it true that Sonia5) had searches? Did you receive the letter written from the artillery school? Write, friend, more often; we find it hard not to have news for so long.

*) The date is established according to N. K. Krupskaya's postscript to this letter, marked "22/VI".
*) A Bundist, apparently A. M. Zeldov.

A. M. MARTOV — V. I. LENIN

b Loguivy.

July 9 [1902. Paris].

I am staying here until the 15th/16th. Yesterday, in conversation with a Kievan, I learned that we are in bad odor even with our supporters over the "Erfurt Program": they say we haven't fulfilled an order for a whole year for which 300 rubles were paid. They even had the idea of giving the same amount to the Union so that it would reprint Krichevsky's translation. How do things stand with the translation? It seems L[yubov] I[saakovna] has undertaken it? If so, then after "No. 4 of Zarya it is necessary to arrange for her to print it with Dittc. Answer about this. It is very important not to let the order be transferred to the Union1).

L[eo] Grigoryevich is insisting that you write the preface to "The Tasks" as quickly as possible, because Koltsov's type is occupied and cannot be broken apart2). When can we expect it?

I don't understand why they're not sending me proofs from London3). Don't know what state the issue is in — I'm afraid progress is slow among the typesetters.

With Olkhin we in the "Organizational Committee" decided (respectively *) to propose to A[lexander] (to resolve) the following4):

1) We from London enter into o f f i c i a l relations with the Russian O.K.

2) We propose to the R.O.K. to respect the pleas of the Poles and Latvians about admission to the congress, giving them the right to participate in debates but not in voting until such time as their relations to the party are settled.

3) Mixed organizations (S.D. and S.R.) may be admitted only on condition of determining their relations to the R.S.D.R.P.

4) All committees are admitted; with the agreement of 3 committees, declared to the Organizational Committee, Russian groups not bearing the name of committees are admitted.

5) A committee is recognized as a group that has taken the name of a committee by the time of the March conference.

6) The Siberian Union is admitted with the rights of a committee.

7) The question of admitting foreign groups that did not participate in the conference will be decided at the congress.

Note. Regarding the group "Struggle" the decision of the conference remains in force, which recognized the unnecessary of its participation in the congress *).

8) Time — not earlier than November. The Organizational Committee must notify the committees that work on the congress (including travel) will take the delegates 2 — 3 weeks.

9) Questions in O.K. (ours) are decided unanimously.

10) The proposed agenda **):

a) Reports of delegates
b) Program of the party
c) Tactics of the party
d) Organization of the party. Quite absurd.

11) Propose to the committees to indicate to the Organizational Committee those particular questions which they wish to include in the agenda within the outlined headings or outside them and — insofar as possible — to present draft resolutions or reports.

12) Request the Russian O.K. to send a list of active organizations with which it counts to enter into direct relations on the question of the congress, so as to verify even before the congress by mutual correspondence the mandates.

13) Request the O.K. to establish which committees and organizations need outside help in order to be represented at the congress and in what amounts?

14) An agreement between the Bund, the Union and the League that from autumn special collections should be made in the colonies to cover congress expenses (under the firm "for the most important conspiratorial undertaking").

That's all. All these points are proposed for the consideration of the R.O.K.

Then, we agreed on the fact that we (the Iskrites) are turning to the Union with an o f f i c i a l proposal5) to meet for discussion of the possibility of a principled agreement for the purpose of unifying our practical activity. I am attaching the draft of the letter which should then be sent to London to V[era] Iv[anovna]6). We will send a copy to Geneva and Zurich. I will send a third to Alexander N[ikolaevich]. Send remarks immediately.

I shake your hand.

Did you read "Liberation"7)?

Tomorrow I will send you materials and proofs. My opinion: it is necessary to attach to this issue: 1) from the village — Novgorod province; 2) about the Kharkov May demonstration; 3) a declaration about a traitor and if possible — about the suppression of Kharkov peasants, and from Vitebsk. The declaration of the Kharkov Economists is interesting. The incident in Tikhoretskaya is described in the Petersburg News almost as we have it; only the fact of self-poisoning is not questioned and mention is made not of workers razing buildings but only of their wish to kill the investigator and that things are still unsettled in the village. The role of the investigator there is spoken of as an established fact. — The Confession of a traitor (under this title) I advise placing in the next issue8).

As for the caricature, I stand for placing it on the reverse of the caricature of peasants or on the same sheet.

We forgot the representation of the League (3 votes) and the Union (2 votes)!!

There is no vote for the Russian organization of the Is[kra]!!!

V. I. LENIN — TO N. K. KRUPSKAYA

IN LONDON.

16 VII 02 [Logaivy. Côtes du Nord. France].

I am enclosing a letter to Arkady1).

I received your letter today, proofs and money. Merci *).

Regarding the "congress" in Switzerland2) there's some damned confusion. Who, in the first place, thought up this "congress"? Not us. It was probably cooked up by B[oris] Nikolayevich], and he ought to be properly chastened for thoughtlessness (the trip abroad, chatting with Koren[evsky]3) about the congress, etc.): if you haven't done so, please scold him thoroughly. I would do it myself, but it seems better for you, otherwise I'm already very angry.

No one is organizing a "congress": for a congress everyone needs to be present (and we don't know anything definite about Arkady and Sonia). For a "congress" we need some of the people from abroad (like Dimka, the old fellows4), m[aybe] Al[exander]ova5) and others), but that was never mentioned. For a congress no one has even prepared a program, and no one knows what to talk about: about the Russian org[anizatio]n of the Iskra? without delegates from the organization itself?? This is all amazingly hasty and thoughtless!!

L[eo] Grigoryevich] is now postponing this himself "until autumn." Please try yourself to "dismiss" this nonsense about a "congress." We need to see Lapty6) right now: he will visit both the Swiss [people] and will himself come to us. What else? Then the cook7), it seems, still needs schooling, — and let him study in Zurich; that's fine. M[aybe], like B[oris] Nikolayevich], he will sit abroad for months more?!? Why rush to see him? And when he wants to go, he himself should come to us, and there's no need to drag him now. And what nonsense B[oris] Nikolayevich] and V[era] V[asilievna]9) are writing to Berg8): "one cannot talk without P[avel] Borisovich]." With whom? With the cook — he is with P[avel] Borisovich]. With three people10) — they are with P[avel] Borisovich]. With Lapty — he will be at P[avel] Borisovich]'s. Advise Berg firmly to give V[era] V[asilievna] and B[oris] N[ikolaevich] a piece of your mind for this nonsense and write me how Berg looks at things, and whether there's any hope that he'll answer them in such a way as to knock the fancy out of their heads. And then P[avel] B[orisovich] himself traveled to M[unich]11), — will come to London too. That the arrival of G[eorgy] Valentinovich] is necessary, no one doubted.

I wrote to G[eorgy] Valentinovich] that I know nothing about the "congress," but a business meeting (with Lapty, etc.) is necessary in London, where, of course, he will be too12). If needed, I will write to him again.

Try in every way to press hard on L[eo] Grigoryevich] to dissuade him: he is unclear to himself about who, why and how this "congress" will be. 

Your

I think there's no need to return the proofs, is there? N'est ce pas? *)

And what about the article by V[era] V[asil]evna]13)? Has it not been included? Please don't forget: in my agrarian article14) there is a quote from Bulgakov: p.? p.? That can't stay, and if I don't arrive before and don't see the proofs again, then you delete not the whole note, but only these words: "p. — p. — ".

*) See letter No. 56 (p. 256).

V. I. LENIN — TO I. I. RADCHENKO

[PART 2]

WITH A LETTER TO ARKADY *).

[July 16, 1902. Loguivy. Côtes du Nord. France].

Dear friend! I have read your long letter of 6/VI **) again, and wish to add something to my previous letter. I was especially gladdened by your report of a conversation with workers...***). We very rarely receive letters that truly give us so much encouragement. Convey this without fail to your workers and convey to them our request that they themselves write to us not only for publication, but also for an exchange of thoughts, so as not to lose contact with each other and mutual understanding. I am personally particularly interested in how the workers will respond to What Is to Be Done?, because I have not yet received any workers' responses to it.

So, establish direct contact with us with your circle of workers, and with Manя ****) as well: this is very important and will greatly strengthen both their alignment with the Iskra and your position among them. And then, if there are among Manя's leaders truly capable people, it would be good for one of them to come to us: suggest this idea to them and talk about how they view it.

Then still [two] three more points.

1) If Vanya *) is ours, then how would you define your relations with him? What do you think? M[aybe], if Vanya and Manя are completely ours (and if they issue the declaration about which I wrote — this is extremely important), then they could accept you into their Central Committee and besides formally confirm you in the function specifically of unifying all-Russian work? (i.e., "The C.K. entrusts to NN, its member and member of the Russian organization of the Iskra, with which organization the C.K. is completely in solidarity, entrusts to this NN the conduct of affairs on the preparation of party unification in the spirit of the Iskra").

M[aybe] it could be modified like this (I, of course, am suggesting all [completely] only hypothetically, no more): and the C.K. of the St. Petersburg Committee, expressing its complete solidarity with the Russian organization of the Iskra, is pleased to accept, with the general agreement of the Committee, a group of persons belonging to this organization and specifically engaged in the transport of the Iskra and its distribution throughout Russia. The C.K. sends to aid this group such and such members and appropriates such and such means, whereby one of the members of this group (Arkady) enters the C.K. of the St. Petersburg Committee, remaining a member of the Russian organization of the Iskra, and takes into his special charge the preparation of all-party unification in the spirit of the Iskra". By the group I mean those persons whom you sent for fish4) etc. I repeat once more: I am only suggesting various acceptable and possible assumptions, fulfilling your request to give a "concrete sketch of a plan" and leaving to your judgment to use my assumptions in one way or another. Write without fail how things stand now and in what direction you are moving them. Strike while the iron is hot, and remember that concerning the plan of final and irrevocable conquest of the "tuning fork" (= St. Pb. Committee = Vanя) we need to get into harmony on both sides as thoroughly as possible. And you should be wise as serpents with your young friends! **)

If this is possible, this would be best. Then you would be in the O.K. (for preparing Sasha) as a delegate from Vanя, and from Sonя there would be one more person of ours. Write quickly — how do you look at this question? Did you talk about it with Vanя and with Manя?

2) You must form the Russian O.K. and take it into your hands: you from Vanя, Kler from Sonя, plus one more of ours from the south — that would be the ideal. With the Bund keep yourselves extremely careful and restrained, not revealing your cards, leaving him to manage Bund affairs and not letting him stick his nose into Russian affairs: remember that this is an unreliable friend (or even an enemy).

3) Explain everywhere and to everyone that it is gossip that the Iskra editorial board wants itself to become the C.K. of the Russian party. That is nonsense. The C.K. can only exist in the field of action, and we dream that it will grow out of the O.K. and out of worker-revolutionaries. The relations of the Iskra editorial board to the C.K. would be defined by the principle of division of functions (ideological leadership and practical management), whereby for unification there would serve regular congresses, and m[aybe] perhaps permanent delegation here of one of the 5 (let us say) members of the C.K. This gossip is spread by "Struggle"5) and it must be exposed. We don't want to answer these scoundrels in print: they are better punished by the silence of the Iskra.

M[aybe] even Vanя's doubts (which you wrote about) are explained by the fact that he has only a hazy picture of it? Achieve complete clarity of understanding from both Vanя and especially from Manя.

I shake your hand firmly and wish you perseverance above all.

Your Lenin. *)

P. S. If Vanя demands a precise formulation of relations between him and Sonя, between his members and members of Sonя entering the Petersburg C.K. — then this, I think, is best postponed until a meeting here and to tell Vanя directly: "one of two things — either we are truly in solidarity — then working together we will get in harmony within a month so that not the slightest shadow of misunderstanding remains among us, because we will all be Iskrites. Or disagreement will be revealed — then we will part in good faith. But we don't want to scandalize again by writing treaties and the like!"

From your letter of 6/VI *) I see that you answered them in this spirit initially, and did so excellently, of course.

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

1435

22/VII. Lenin's Letter to Arkady (No. 2).

We received the 4th swallow + letter of 3/VII ***), as well as 3 empty letters7) (most likely the Leipzig one arrived). The letter of 3/VII was sent on to Lenin (he is away at the moment)8).

Yes, one begins to believe that Vanя is a sincere friend. Things are going so splendidly that one can hardly believe it.

We had a letter from Lina9), which shows that even the Old Woman is becoming a friend. She decided to express gratitude to comrade Lenin for What Is to Be Done? and to allocate to the Iskra 20% 10).

A correspondence has begun. Karolina == Kharkov. Incidentally. Karolina asks us to send her 2 puds of all sorts of things (we already know the address, except for Nos. 14 and 15 11)), which she has.

Can't we somehow find Misha (Nizhny), there were loyal friends there (Chachina and the Piskunovs 12)) devoted to Fekla and active, and suddenly they fell silent. We were informed, incidentally, of the arrest of Tsyurupa13). Don't you know the details?

Write how quickly the journals arrive.

Masha = Grisha14) arrived safely. We connected him with the local (Batumi) horses.

News was received from the fish dealer15) that it is possible to send, so we have sent.

Lapty arrived, but we haven't seen him yet16).

Regarding a meeting with Sasha, we are thinking of postponing it for a while, but more about that later.

57.

2 VIII 02) [London].

I received your letter, dear Ch., and answer for now in a couple of words: I am terribly unwell, lying in bed.

On the point you raised, I have not seen a single letter. And I think you have fallen into a misunderstanding. Who could have thought of "disorganizing" workers' circles, groups and organizations instead of multiplying and strengthening them? You write that I have not indicated how a strictly conspiratorial organization can communicate with the masses of workers. This is hardly so, because (although this is obvious from what's said *)) on page 96 you yourself cite a place about the necessity of the very widest number (Lenin's emphasis) with the most diverse functions" of "a whole mass (NB!) [a whole mass!!] of other organizations" (i.e., apart from the central organization of professional revolutionaries)2).

But you wrongly see a complete opposition there where I establish only a gradation and indicate the limits of the extreme [groups] links of this gradation. Beginning from a handful of very conspiratorial and tight nucleus of professional revolutionaries (the center) and ending with a massive "organization of non-members" — there runs a whole chain of links. I indicate only the direction in the changing character of links: the more "massive", the less formed, the less conspiratorial the organization should be — that is my thesis. But you want to understand it as meaning that between the masses and revolutionaries there is no need for intermediaries!! Forgive me! But the entire essence lies in these intermediaries. And since I point out the properties of extreme links and emphasize (and precisely emphasize) the necessity of intermediate ones, it is clear in itself that these intermediate links will stand m i d d l e between the "organization of revolutionaries" and "massive organization" — middle in terms of type of structure, i.e., they will be less narrow and conspiratorial than the center, — but more than a "weavers' union" etc. For example, in a "Factory circle" (one must, of course, strive for there to be a circle of intermediaries on each factory) one must necessarily find a "middle": on the one hand, the whole or almost the whole factory must inevitably know such and such an advanced person and believe him, obey him. On the other hand, the "circle" must so arrange things that not all its members could be known, so that the one most in contact with the masses could not be caught red-handed, could not be exposed at all. Doesn't this follow by itself from what Lenin said?

The ideal of a "Factory circle" is completely clear: four or five (for example) worker-revolutionaries — the masses should not know all of them. Probably one should be known, and he must be protected from exposure: let them say about him — a man of ours, a leader, although he doesn't take part in revolution (not visible). One communicates with the center. Both have a candidate each. They set up several circles (professional, educational, various, spy-catching, armed, etc. and so forth), whereby, naturally, the conspiratorial character of a circle, for example, for catching spies or for seeking arms will be quite different from that of a circle for reading the Iskra or for reading legal literature, etc. and so forth. Conspiratorial character will be inversely proportional to the number of members of the circle and directly proportional to the remoteness of the goals of the circle from immediate struggle.

I don't know whether it's worth writing separately about this: if you think so — send me this letter, I will think it over, together with yours, as material. I hope to see a Petersburg comrade and discuss this in detail here. —

I shake your hand firmly. Your Lenin.

58.

IN KIEV.

4/VIII [1902. London].

1) We received two more of your letters and could not make out anything from them2). You write with too weak a composition. Before writing — make a test each time. It is terribly frustrating to receive a letter and be unable to read it.

2) Have you received our letter in which we asked you to send us about three hundred rubles from your available funds3)?

3) What news from prison?

4) The address of Illge4). You are writing it incorrectly, it should be: *)

5) Let us know what is happening in your Committee. They say to Berlin a certain "Leontiy" (Potemnkin) arrived. Our Berlin comrade allegedly received word from him that a) the Kiev Committee is taking all powers from "the old men"5), b) that he is indignant about the letter from the Iskra6) and will oppose recognition of the Iskra as a party organ, c) that the Committee instructed him to enter relations with Zhizn'7), which the Kievans have earmarked as a party organ, d) that the Committee is unable to oppose the Socialist-Revolutionaries, does not dare speak against terror and only wants to oppose the distribution of literature like "Who Lives By What"8) etc. Something here is not right, probably, and we asked that word be sent **) to Leontiy so that he write us and explain in detail what the matter is. But he doesn't write to us***). Explain what is going on.

We earnestly and urgently request that on all somewhat important matters you correspond directly with us, because transmission through Berlin and the like always terribly muddles things. We think that this is confused here too. If a commission is given to someone going abroad, then from him we must absolutely require that he not limit himself to a meeting with someone from League members, but necessarily address the editorial board either personally or with a handwritten (i.e., so that he writes himself and doesn't ask someone from League members to write) letter (registered letters from abroad to the addresses of Dittc and others are completely safe). These measures are necessary because the members of the League and even members of its administration are scattered across all of Europe and don't know much about relations with Russia. *)

But we still don't have the address for calling on you. Probably it was sent in one of the unreadable letters, but we can do nothing about it. We await your reply.

Connect us with Vakar9).

# LENIN COLLECTION

[various editorial footnotes and document references]

59.

TO PETERSBURG.

7/VIII [1902, London].

Dear friend! We received your letters from 10/VII, without date—with the password, and from 20/VII *).

We have not received the swallow, the second letter with the password and about current business. I don't know why they were delayed.

1) From Sonya, finally, we received a letter. She writes that they have great difficulty with passports, which they desperately need. They also write that they are planning to gather on 20/VII and outline further course of action, and then send a person to Fekla to complete the draft. All this is not bad, but because correspondence has not been established, there is a sense of some disconnection—Sonya doesn't know about Fekla's situation, and Fekla doesn't know very much about Sonya. Sonya did not send addresses, we wrote to 2 old ones, what good will come from this—I don't know.

2) Are you connected with Petya? If yes, then when you receive by count *), send something there at any rate. They send letter after letter (incidentally writing in unknown cipher) and are begging for furs. It appears that Fekla's friends are being displaced there by Robert's friends 2). We know nothing definite. The Committee is offended by Fekla's letter regarding the May proclamation and is in revolt.

3) We gave your address to Semyon Semyonovich 3). Dimochka will tell you about him in detail. Among Semyon Semyonovich's acquaintances we have good, loyal friends, but thus far they still consider themselves as belonging only to Semyon Semyonovich, and they regard Fekla's activities from the sidelines. They will soon have their own congress, at which the question will be raised of recognizing Iskra as the guiding organ. One must be very diplomatic with Semyon Semyonovich. I asked Semyon Semyonovich to be sure to meet with you and have a talk.

4) Regarding beer 4) we have a person who knows how to speak Swedish and has connections with the Swedes, but he is very much of a muddle-maker 5) and we are afraid to send him alone, especially since from your letter we don't see what precisely and with whom he is supposed to come to an agreement. We are thinking of assigning to him a nursemaid—Laptya, so that together they equip the matter; true, this will be some delay, but in that case the matter will be more reliable. Write in more detail about what needs to be agreed upon.

5) You must be sure to meet with Uncle 6) His address *). I wrote to him to meet with you, but he is keeping silent about something.

6) We are terribly afraid for Arkady, let him take care of himself and not spare money, let him better not send to Fekla.

7) Address for money: Ninkau 7) or Regner.

8) The Musician arrived in Switzerland, we are calling him here 8).

9) Vanya 9) has not yet arrived; when he does I will immediately inform you.

10) There are rumors that "Svoboda" 10) is uniting with the Workers' Cause, with the latter having made a concession and recognized terror. Socialist-Revolutionaries are planning a weekly newspaper for the masses.

11) If Vanya and ) send something regarding the socialist-revolutionary, it will be very good.

[Postscript by V. I. Lenin.]

To point 6. Arkady absolutely must leave Petersburg, since he has been traced. He can leave now, since we will see Kolya 1a) here. Let Arkady remember that he is almost alone for us now and that he must preserve himself at all costs.

*) Petya—conspiratorial name for Kiev: "to receive by count"—to receive a transport.
2) Robert—conspiratorial name for "Workers' Cause."
3) Semyon Semyonovich—conspiratorial name for the Northern Union.
4) Beer—Iskra transport through Finland.
5) Not established who is being referred to.
*) Address not given in manuscript. —Ed.

6) Uncle—revolutionary pseudonym of L. M. Knipovich in 1902.
7) Pinkay. Photograph. Turnerstr. 11. Leipzig—address of the Iskra editorial office for letters from Russia.
8) Musician—pseudonym of P. A. Krasikov. P. A. Krasikov was summoned to London for a conference of the Iskra editorial board, the Russian Organization of Iskra (from which Krasikov came), the Petersburg Committee, and the Northern Union.
9) Vanya—here V. P. Krasnukha, representative of the Petersburg Union of Struggle ("Vanya"), who went abroad to confer with the Iskra editorial board on the question of party unification.

V. P. Krasnukha (1868—1913) (Vanya, Citizen)—s.-d.; Iskra-ist; graduated from the Military Medical Academy in Petersburg; in his student years worked on the famine in Chernigov and illegally in an organization headed by Natanson; at one time worked in the illegal print shop of this organization in Smolensk; avoided arrest because he immediately put on a military doctor's uniform and went to serve out his fellowship stipend; the period of military service was for K. a period of intellectual transformation and complete mastery of Marxism; from 1899 K. worked in the s.-d. organization of Petersburg: in early April 1902 he represented the Petersburg Union at the Bialystok conference; in June-July 1902 with K.'s help a commission for the reorganization of the Committee was created at the Petersburg Committee, and by its decision K. left around July 20 for a conference with the Iskra editorial board on the question of party unification; August 15 entered the unofficial troika of O.K. formed at the London conference; September 6 in Petersburg worked out with I. I. Radchenko a plan of work for creating a Russian O.K.; in autumn 1902 K. led the struggle against Economists in the Petersburg Committee; around November 15 participated at the Pskov conference, which constituted the O.K., at which he was confirmed as a member of O.K.; November 19 (6) 1902 he was arrested at his apartment at Elizaveta Station, where he lived as a zemstvo doctor; March 24 (11) 1903 released; in 1905/6 in Nikolaev he was chairman of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies; in 1906 arrested on the third day of his arrival in Petersburg, released after 7-8 months without consequences; in 1908 arrested again and brought to trial in the case of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies in Odessa, where he was transferred; was sentenced to eternal exile in Siberia; emigrated through Finland first to Austria, then to Serbia; during the Balkan War contracted typhus and died April 24, 1913 in the city of Ochrid.

10) For a characterization of the "Svoboda" group, see Lenin's note "On the Group 'Svoboda'" (Works, vol. V, p. 211).
11) Vanya—Petersburg Union of Struggle.
12) Kolya—Petersburg Committee.

60.

TO PETERSBURG.

12 VIII 02 [London].

We just received your letter of 25 VII *)*) and read it together with the Citizen 2). We are amazed at why you, a member of the Organizational Commission 3), are not carrying out the previous intention to co-opt new members from workers standing outside the Mani? The Citizen believes that this is the only measure for modifying the entire Mani, and this measure must be carried out as soon as possible.

You must preserve Arkady: you are answerable to us for him, and we will bring you to trial if you do not throw him out of Petersburg before his arrest. Let him not get carried away with living work and not forget that the gendarmes are also alive. We would very much need a person in the south (in Kharkiv or Kiev)? Can't Arkady go there?**)

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

No. 29, three old letters, correspondence received 4).

Write in more detail about beer 5). 1) Is it absolutely necessary for a person to go there, can one not correspond instead; 2) perhaps one can get by with a translator (a translator of one's own people can be found); 3) what to come to an agreement about. Find Nikolay Grigoryevich Tomilin 6) (his address: Nevsky 164, apt. 1, password: "I am from Vologda," response: "from Montparnasse." According to Pakhomy, this is a very capable person.

We have complete unity with Vanya. The most brilliant prospects are unfolding. The plans are very broad. It is necessary to win the south. If Dimochka is still with you, let him hurry to Caroline. The local Committee is just now occupied with criticism of Lenin's book and the program; this is the place to send one's person. Is it convenient for Arkady to live in the south? Maybe it would be better for him to move there?

For God's sake, an address for letters to Sonya!

*) —7 August according to new style. —Ed.
**) The last two sentences in the manuscript are crossed out, apparently when the letter was being encrypted. —Ed.

*) I. I. Radchenko's letter of August 7 (July 25) is recorded in notebook of archive No. 1435.
2) Citizen—revolutionary pseudonym of V. P. Krasnukha in 1902, after his arrival in August 1902 in London for a conference with Lenin.
*) Organizational Commission—this is the commission for the reorganization of the Petersburg Committee, created as a result of two conferences of P. A. Krasikov, P. N. Lepeshinskiy, and I. I. Radchenko with representatives of the Petersburg Union and the Workers' Organization in June-July 1902. From the Petersburg Union in the Organizational Commission were V. P. Krasnukha; from the "Workers' Organization"—P. V. Andreev. From the Workers' Organization there were two representatives (the second not established). Both were elected at a meeting of representatives of five districts of the Workers' Organization, held in June-July 1902 (see No. 30 of Iskra, from December 28 (15) 1902, article "Petersburg Schism"). From the Iskra organization—I. I. Radchenko and P. A. Krasikov.
4) No. 29—this is the number of the journal "Novoe Delo," regularly sent to London by I. I. Radchenko. Correspondence—this is the "Response of the Petersburg Committee of the Party to the inquiry of the Batum workers," published in No. 23 of Iskra, from August 14 (1) 1902. I. I. Radchenko's letters are recorded in notebook of archive No. 1435.
5) On May 13 (April 30) 1902 I. I. Radchenko reported on the route restored by V. M. Smirnov with the help of Swedish worker A. Weidel, specially settled in Finland for this purpose (Mariehamn on the Åland Islands). This route went through Stockholm by Finnish steamship "Bore" to Turku, then by railway cargo to the Russian-Finnish border (Terioki-Kuokkala). (See letter 6, footnote 8, p. 119.)
6) We do not have biographical data on N. G. Tomilin.
7) Vanya in this case—V. P. Krasnuhin, as representative of the Petersburg Union = Vanya.

61.

TO PETERSBURG.

16/VIII [1902, London].

Dear friend! We received No. 30. Write in more detail about the visits with Clara's wife and Uncle. Did you come to an agreement with the latter *)?

Communicate as quickly as possible the cipher with Pavel 2). There was a letter from him, but we cannot read it; the cipher which Laptya communicated does not fit, he apparently made a mistake. He is apparently in Yekaterinoslav.

Where is Pasha 3)? Inform him that the Belgian addresses do not work.

Well now, we have Vanya, the Musician, and Semyon Semyonovich here *). Complete unity. Yesterday we decided the following: Vanya, the Russian organization of Iskra, Semyon Semyonovich effectively unite; Vanya and Semyon Semyonovich issue statements of their solidarity with Iskra. On the basis of the decisions of the spring conference 5), Vanya + the organization of Iskra + Semyon Semyonovich arrange an Organizational Committee for the preparation of an all-party congress. Then into this committee must enter representatives from Boris and from the south; but this comes later; for now the Organizational Committee is still considered not yet constituted, and no one except our own knows about it; it consists exclusively of our people. The Organizational Committee takes upon itself the functions of the C.C. and tries to prepare actual unification. It concerns itself with the delivery and distribution of literature, and, most importantly, with sending its own people into committees and conquering them. The Organizational Committee appoints agents for the execution of those routine functions. The Organizational Committee has the right of co-option. As for the south, there probably will not be very stubborn resistance. Yesterday we received a letter from the Southern Worker. He writes that the forces of the united southern committees have been smashed, that the editorial board of the Southern Worker is intact, it intends to continue publishing the newspaper in the form it was conducted before the unification of southern committees, that in its views it is in solidarity with Iskra and regards the Russian organization of Iskra with confidence, they propose entering into close relations and working hand in hand. They also report that 5 southern cities have decided to render every possible support to Iskra and the Southern Worker. In the end they propose transport at 40 rubles per pood 6).

We will respond to them in the most friendly manner 7). But nonetheless it is necessary to send to the south completely our own people, so that they thoroughly sound out the ground and conduct their own line. When it can be hoped that the southerner will be completely our own man, then he will be accepted into the Organizational Committee and then the Organizational Committee will constitute itself and invite the Buddhist. Tell all this to Dimka, Uncle, and Sonya (we don't yet know their addresses).

Vanya will communicate the details.

In a few days a "cook" will come to you, representative of Semyon Semyonovich. He is a very valuable practical man, completely our own person, will talk with you about all business; one of them is as follows. There is a group of six persons and they have 300 thousand. These are our people, but they simply don't agree to give money; they will give for a cause in which they themselves will work. It is supposed to get their representative into the Organizational Committee and draw them into the general work 8). These people are known to Semyon Semyonovich generally and to the cook in particular. One of them is in Petersburg; the "cook" will meet with him; [it may be necessary] you absolutely must *) meet with him as well, so look carefully **) what kind of person he is and do everything possible for complete fusion with them ***).

*) The words: "you absolutely must" were written in by Lenin. —Ed.
**) The word: "carefully" was written in by Lenin. —Ed.
***) The end of the sentence, from the words: "and do everything," was added by Lenin. —Ed.

Answer quickly about beer and in general write in more detail. Does the journal reach you well?

Well, all together we send you the warmest greetings.

*) "No. 30"—this is the number of the journal "Novoe Delo," sent by I. I. Radchenko to London.

Clara's wife—Z. P. Kzhizhanovsky.

In early August Z. P. Kzhizhanovsky went to Pskov for the proposed conference of members of the Russian Organization of Iskra. On the way she stopped in Petersburg to see I. I. Radchenko, with whom she arranged for the organization of a conference after the arrival of P. A. Krasikov and V. P. Krasnukha from London.

L. M. Knipovich, upon completion of the term of exile she was serving in Astrakhan, came in early August 1902 to Petersburg to see I. I. Radchenko to arrange about her work in Petersburg. The proposal of I. I. Radchenko and E. D. Stasova to work on the transport of literature through Finland proved unacceptable to L. M. Knipovich, and she went to work in Yekaterinoslav, then again to Astrakhan, then to Poltava; in 1903 Knipovich was sent by O.K. to the Tver Committee, from which she was delegated to the Second Congress of the Party.

a) Pavel—revolutionary pseudonym of one of the members of the southwestern transport group of 1902-1903; in the opinion of R. S. Galbershtedt, this could have been M. G. Dargolts, whose wife—Ts. Dargolts, together with N. Kudrin and M. S. Vainshtein, organized in Kamyanets-Podilsky a quarters for the reception and distribution of literature entering from abroad.

M. G. Dargolts (Pavel) (b. 1879)—s.-d.-Iskra-ist, member of the Odessa circle of the South-Russian Workers' Union in 1897-1898; in 1899 was brought to trial in this case and exiled for 4 years to Eastern Siberia; in March 1902 fled from Yeniseisk to Yekaterinoslav.

*) Pasha—A. I. Stessell left Poltava on July 3 (June 20) 1902 "for home"—to Vilna, transferring his powers to Mitrofan—V. O. Tsederbaum (see the latter's book "For a Quarter Century," vol. I, pt. 2. Giz 1927, p. 74-75).

4) N. K. Krupskaya reports on the conference held August 15, 1902 in London of the representative of the Petersburg Committee (Vanya in correspondence)—V. P. Krasnukha, the representative of the Russian Organization of Iskra—P. A. Krasikov (the Musician), the representative of the Northern Union (in correspondence Semyon Semyonovich)—V. A. Poskov with the editorial board of Iskra (whether anyone else from the Iskra editorial board was at this conference besides Lenin is not established). As a result of this conference an unofficial nucleus of the Organizational Committee was created to prepare the Second Congress of the Party.

5) N. K. Krupskaya speaks of the April 1902 Bialystok conference.

6) N. K. Krupskaya writes about the letter of Ye. Ya. Levin to the Iskra editorial board, received in London on August 4, 1902 (notebook of archive 1412), in which he reports about the conference held apparently in Poltava in July 1902 of southern cities, which decided to render Iskra every possible support (the mentioned letter of Ye. Ya. Levin is published in the article by I. Volkovich "V. I. Lenin and the Gathering of the Party Around Old Iskra." "Proletarian Revolution" No. 3 (26) 1924, p. 66-67). V. N. Rozanov, whom we asked about this conference, reported: "After the failure of the Southern Worker organization in spring 1902 the question arose about the further existence of the group. I undertook to visit the southern cities (Odessa, Nikolaev, Elisavetgrad, Kremenchug, Yekaterinoslav, Kharkiv). A picture emerged of the almost complete smashing of s.-d. committees and groups, but at the same time the presence of great revolutionary upsurge and attraction toward s.-d. organization. When I arrived in Poltava and reported my impressions to the Levin spouses, both of them raised the question of merging with the Iskra organization. They motivated the necessity of this step by the fact that 1) the Southern Worker group was scattered by arrests and hardly could be reborn, 2) that Iskra is the only group capable of leading the s.-d. movement, 3) that the development of the revolutionary movement requires concentration of all forces around one center. I did not agree with this opinion, because, although the bright political direction of Iskra was impressive to me, but its striving for hegemony, its polemic with Workers' Cause was not to my liking, especially since I was not what is called an Orthodox Marxist. Hot and sometimes even sharp disputes on these themes were mine, especially with Evdokia Semyonovna Levina. Since I declared that if the comrades did not wish to publish the Southern Worker further, then I would publish it alone, it was decided to call a conference of all available members of the organization and discuss this question once more.

Approximately after a month and a half to two months this conference took place. I don't remember that Illarion Vasilyevich Chernyshev was present at it. Surely present were: 1) Eotem Yakovlevich Levin, 2) Evdokia Semyonovna Levina, 3) Dr. Alexander Kondratyevich Gan, now deceased, then a member of the Kharkiv Committee of s.-d., 4) myself. It seems, but I do not assert for certain, that Mikh. Iv. (?) Nikolaev, also a member of the Kharkiv Committee [presumably L. V. Nikolaev. The question mark was placed by V. N. Rozanov. —Ed.], was also present.

By the time of this conference circumstances had changed in that I had managed to reorganize the illegal print shop anew, and a proclamation against terror was printed. At the conference Ye. Ya. Levin defended the point of view of complete merger with the Iskra organization, I defended the opposite. The resolution adopted was printed in Iskra. It spoke of solidarity with Iskra, but did not speak of dissolution of the Southern Worker group. It was a compromise, but with predominance of the "Iskra-ists," as all members except myself were at that time (in ideological terms; organizationally no one belonged to the Iskra group)."

The resolution of the conference, under the heading "Open Letter from the Group 'Southern Worker,'" is published in No. 27 of Iskra, from November 14 (1) 1902. The delay with publication occurred because of negotiations between representatives of the Iskra organization and members of the "Southern Worker" group, which is mentioned in further correspondence.

7) See Lenin's letter of August 22 (p. 277).

8) Apparently the acquisition of these large funds for the party remained only in the project. Vasily Alexandrovich Noskov, brother of the late Vladimir Noskov, in response to our inquiry on this matter, answered: "My brother Vlad. Al. Noskov spent on party work both all his personal inheritance money and money collected by him for party needs among relatives, acquaintances, and persons sympathetic to his work. I cannot point out the latter precisely, but I know that both my brother and F. I. Shekoldine had good connections with young wealthy bourgeoisie in Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Moscow, Ivanovo-Voznesensk and other cities. Regarding the fact you reported, i.e., about the offer of 300 thousand rubles by some 'six-person group' for party purposes, on condition of their personal participation in party affairs, I know absolutely nothing. I suppose that such an offer would have been an event of outstanding character, about which my brother would undoubtedly have shared with me and with close comrades."

62.

TO KHARKOV.

22/VIII [1902, London].

Dear comrades! We were extremely pleased by your letter with news of the views and plans of the remaining editorial [board] of the South[ern] W[orker] *). We from all our soul join your proposal of the most close relations and cooperation between the South[ern] W[orker] and Iskra. We must immediately adopt the most energetic measures to strengthen these close relations and move to unified actions flowing from our unity of views. First, we will use for this your proposal to conduct negotiations with (Cherny[shev] 2)). Give us his address. Won't he be abroad (as we have heard) and won't he visit us *)? Second, indicate to us your official representative. Give immediately a direct address for letters to you from abroad and from Russia, and also an address for a visit to you. We have already taken steps so that members of the Russ[ian] Org[anization] of Iskra will meet with you and discuss everything in detail 3). In order not to waste time, write to us in more detail about affairs. What are the nearest practical plans of the editorial [board] of the South[ern] W[orker]? Does it have relations with southern committees and formal relations with them? From your words, that you intend to conduct business the way it was conducted before the formation of the "Union of Russ[ian] south[ern] com[mittees] and organizations]," we conclude that both the composition and direction of the present editorial [board] of the South[ern] W[orker] diverge from the composition and direction of that editorial board which was in spring, at the time of the conference? What exactly is this divergence of directions, and what position do the southern committees occupy, i.e., which of them stand for the direction of the "Union of south[ern] com[mittees] and organizations]" and which for yours? What is your view on whether this divergence is profound, whether it will impede party unification, and what measures are desirable for the speediest achievement of solidarity? In what relation to the committees of the south (and to both directions, about which you wrote) do those 6 provincial groups stand, about which you wrote? It would be very desirable for us if you would help us to clarify completely all these questions, for this would greatly assist the rapprochement between your friends and those working in the south from the members of the Russian Iskra organization.

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

Regarding transport write in more detail, namely, a) whether this is a new route or already tested; b) how quickly it can function; c) what quantity to transport; d) will this route be entirely at the disposal of the Russian Organization of Iskra, or do you set certain conditions and if so, which exactly 4). What must we undertake in the near future?

*) From abroad write to Ditsa in two envelopes, asking him to forward immediately to the Iskra editorial board.

*) Lenin is answering the letter of Ye. Ya. Levin, which is mentioned in footnote 6 to letter 61, p. 274.

a) I. V. Chernyshev—s.-d., wavering between the directions of "Southern Worker" and "Workers' Cause"; in the early 90s conducted Marxist propaganda in Kursk among local intelligentsia; in 1894-1895 led a student circle in Petersburg ("young ones"); in 1896 the group of "young ones" merged into the Petersburg Union; in February 1897 Ch. was exiled for 3 years to Vologda province; in July 1902 came abroad to Berlin; in October 1902 Ch. entered the Berlin group of Iskra; in April 1903 Ch. declared himself a supporter of the Union of Russian s.-d. and left for Russia.

3) See letter of August 16 (p. 273).

4) The reference is apparently to the Odessa transport group connected with the Southern Worker.

63.

TO SAMARA.

23/IX [1902, London].

N. K. KRUPSKAYA — G. M. and Z. P. KZHIZHANOVSKY

Both your letters of 28/VIII and the following were received *). Correspondence can be considered established. The following have arrived from those who fled abroad: Grach, Krasavets, Blumenfeld, Vallakh, Maltsман, Bobrovsky, Gursky, Dementyev 2). It is terribly bitter and sad that Vagabond has perished 3)! We cannot at all reconcile ourselves with this misfortune.

Do you have Arkady (Kasyan 4))? We are afraid for him? From Kolya's letters we conclude that he is in great danger.

1) Horses received 2 puds; they demand that about 20 puds be sent per month 5). We'll see what comes of it. Every beginning is difficult. Now it is important to organize delivery. We will give the horses addresses for distribution in the south. Do they have people for this? It would be possible to adapt Grisha for this, but he is apparently very careless and unresourceful, so it is terrifying to put him in this role.

2) Beer, it appears, is being brewed, but you know about this.

3) Dementyev along the way set up excellent transport, cheap and abundant; the first shipment has already been made; details later.

4) There are still some other draft routes, but they will probably have to be abandoned.

5) The matrices of the 22nd and 23rd numbers were supposed to be sent from Berlin on the 19th by a special person. Have they been received?

6) We exiled Uncle from Yekaterinoslav back to Astrakhan; we don't know the reason.

7) What city did Kurts go to? You forgot to write.

8) Inform Ulitsk about the change of address for Mund, and Krasavsk about the change of address for Hornung 6).

[Postscript by V. I. Lenin.]

In the letter to Sonya ask Manyasha 7) at the request of Colombus 8). Columbus wrote to her at the address given him as soon as he came abroad, but has received no answer. Has the letter been received? Does she maintain relations with that gentleman 9), with whom Colombus asked her to correspond? Colombus sends everyone the warmest greetings. He has gone to Geneva.

*) The letters of Z. P. Kzhizhanovsky of September 10 (August 28) and "the following"—without date—were received in London: the first on the 18th, the second on the 21st of September in the name of K. M. Takhtarev (rewritten by N. K. Krupskaya in notebook of archive No. 1430).

2) This refers to the "escape of eleven" from the Kiev prison. The escape was carried out with the help of the Russian Organization of Iskra on August 31 (18) 1902. Ten Iskra-ists fled: O. B. Basovsky, N. E. Bauman, O. S. Blumenfeld, V. S. Bobrovsky, L. Ye. Galperin, M. G. Gursky, V. N. Krokhmal, M. M. Litvinov, B. S. Maltsман, O. Pyatnitsky, and one s.-r.—B. Plesky, arrested shortly after the escape. All the Iskra-ists safely crossed the border and dispersed to different colonies, entering into groups supporting Iskra. The escape of eleven is described in the note "Escape from the Kiev Prison," published in No. 25 of Iskra, from September 28 (15) 1902. In the fall the escaped Iskra-ists were confirmed as members of the Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary S.-d. The Berlin group of escaped Iskra-ists—Basovsky, Galperin, Gursky, Litvinov, Pyatnitsky—engaged in work on transport.

Vallakh—real name M. M. Litvinov.

M. M. Litvinov—Vallakh (b. 1876)—s.-d.-Iskra-ist; sat in the Kiev prison in the case of the Kiev Committee. (For biographical information about him see "Lenin Collection" V, p. 579-580.)

B. S. Maltsман—s.-d.-Iskra-ist; sat in the Kiev prison from June 1902, having been arrested in Teofipol, Volyn province; in Teofipol, serving police surveillance, M. with his wife supervised from late 1901 an receiving warehouse of literature, transported through the southwestern border (Lvov—Teofipol), the so-called "Dementyev route." (For biographical information about M. see "Lenin Collection" VII, p. 71.)

V. S. Bobrovsky (1873-1924)—s.-d.-Iskra-ist, sat in the Kiev prison in the case of the Kiev Committee. (For biographical information about B. see "Lenin Collection" VII, p. 68.)

M. G. Gursky (b. 1874)—s.-d.-Iskra-ist; sat in the Kiev prison in the case of the Kiev Committee. (For biographical information about G. see "Lenin Collection" VII, p. 69.)

3) Vagabond—revolutionary pseudonym of M. A. Silvin.

M. A. Silvin did not manage to escape because of the alarm raised in the Kiev prison on the occasion of the escape of the "eleven."

4) Kasyan—revolutionary pseudonym of I. I. Radchenko in 1902, replacing the pseudonym "Arkady."

5) Transport of Iskra, going on steamships of the French Packet Society through Marseille-Batumi across the Black Sea, was organized by the Baku Iskra group, mainly by A. S. Enukidze, and worked in summer 1902 (see "Technique of Bolshevik Underground," issue II, Giz. p. 18-19); the sender of literature in Marseille was P. G. Smidovich. L. B. Krasin informed the Iskra editorial board of receiving transport through Marseille-Batumi on September 14 (1) 1902 (see notebook of archive No. 1312). Since this method of transfer cost dearly, L. B. Krasin proposed sending literature in large batches 3-4 times a month.

6) Ulitsk—conspiratorial name for Nizhny-Novgorod.

Mund—surname of the person at whose address correspondence was received from abroad from Nizhny; his address is not established.

Hornung—the same as Mund for correspondence from abroad from Kiev.

7) Manyasha—as Lenin called his sister M. I. Ulyanova.

M. I. Ulyanova (Bear, little bear)—s.-d.-Iskra-ist, member of the Russian Organization of Iskra, at that time was in Samara, where she was serving under police surveillance.

8) Columbus—revolutionary pseudonym of I. Kh. Lalayants.

I. Kh. Lalayants (b. 1870) (Columbus)—s.-d.-Iskra-ist, one of the founders of the newspaper "Southern Worker"; in summer 1902 emigrated abroad from Siberia, where he was serving a sentence in the case of the Yekaterinoslav Committee. (For biographical information about L. see "Lenin Collection" VII, p. 66-67.)

9) Not established who is being referred to.

64.

V. I. LENIN, YU. O. MARTOV, and P. A. KRASIKOV—
TO V. P. KRASNUKHA and E. D. STASOVA

TO PETERSBURG.

Letter to Vanya and Varvara Ivanovna 1) personal. We ask to deliver it at once to them and to them alone.

[September 24, 1902, London 2).]

The news of the "victory" of the Knocker 3) has plunged us into amazement. Was it really enough for Kasyan's departure and the Splinter 4) for the Iskra-ists to lose the ability to act? The Knocker's protest could only lead to you proposing he be given a vote and then immediately declaring by majority that he, on the substance of the question, was in a negligible minority; secondly, that his complaint about violation of the statute was absurd and querulous (for according to the statute all those in Petersburg should be polled, not should the matter be held up for polling those absent 5)).

If the Knocker raised (dared to raise) the question of demarcation, then it was obligatory immediately to adopt by majority a decision on his expulsion from the Union.

It is all apparent that the Knocker is insolently going "to war," and the Iskra-ists will disgrace themselves forever if they do not respond with the most decisive and desperate war. Do not fear any threats of the Knocker, no exposure is frightening for you 6), conduct the matter immediately in military fashion, as we wrote above, and as quickly as possible adopt the proposed decisions above. If even the Knocker draws some others along (if even you are left with only half or less than half) *) you nonetheless must go to the end and demand the expulsion of the Knocker unconditionally, without a trace of fear of the "schism" of the Union.

Then before the workers you must also place an ultimatum: either schism of the Union and war or decisive condemnation of the Knocker by the workers and his removal.

We, for our part, write at once to Zubov 7). We defer the printing in Iskra of the Petersburg statement 8).

We repeat: the question now stands of the honor of the Petersburg Iskra-ists... Of course, you must do everything now*) exclusively at a general meeting, necessarily inviting the Knocker as well, and drawing up protocols of decisions. Send the protocols to us at once.

[Postscript by Yu. O. Martov.]

[We of course assumed that workers who were committee members would participate in the conference, as we imagined the elimination of the separateness of the already existing organization as a fact and all previous decisions of yours as not being repealed.]

[Postscript by P. A. Krasikov.]

[On this one must stand firmly, making no compromises at all.]

[Postscript by Yu. O. Martov.]

If, as you previously wrote, the worker members of the Committee are unconditionally on the side of reform, then it is necessary immediately to attract them to participation in deciding this matter. Summon the Knocker to a meeting with them, expose before them the disorganizing aspirations of the Economists and set the matter so that in case any step by the revolting minority in the sense of "publication" of the entire quarrel, the old worker Committee would declare them (also openly) outside the Petersburg organization, and at the same time in the most severe way call to their account all transgressions of the Pet[ersburg] Committee in the past and appeal to comrades throughout Russia to help the Petersburg] workers uphold the banner of political struggle and revolutionary soc[ialism] against Economists. Do not permit in any case reducing the entire question of schism to the question of the rights of the majority, of property rights, of statute, etc.—we know from experience that Economists will set the question on such ground; on the contrary, translate the entire question to the ground of principles.

[Postscript by P. A. Krasikov.]

To the Citizen for the Commission *).

A member of the Commission for the elaboration of the new statute, the principles of which were approved at a general meeting by both the Committee and the workers' organization, requests to communicate the following: 1) principled decisions of the Committee must be considered legal, since the Committee, before elaborating them, discussed and decided affirmatively the question of competence. 2) The workers' organization arrived at decisions of a principled character in its complete composition; consequently its decisions cannot be subjected to any doubt. 3) The Commission of representatives of both the Committee and the workers' organization for the elaboration of the organizational statute must present the same in the shortest possible time, and the plan of this organization must completely coincide with the principles of revolutionary social-democracy, as they are expressed in "What Is to Be Done?"

Thus, at a time when the entire Petersburg organization had decided the question in principle, finding this a necessary condition for its further viability, to raise the question of reconsidering because of the absence at the time of these decisions of one Economist, who had left not on party business for "vacation" and whose presence in any revolutionary organization is only a minus, is in the highest degree not viable and not rational.

I request my words be transmitted through the Citizen to the comrades in the commission for the elaboration of the statute, the draft of which I hope to discuss with them soon. At the same time I deem it necessary once more to remind that our opponents "Economists" are grasping at paragraphs as at a last straw and it makes no sense for us to move the dispute from the ground of principles, embracing the entire Petersburg organization and especially the workers, to the ground of §§.

*) Varvara Ivanovna—revolutionary pseudonym of E. D. Stasova in 1902-1903.

*) At the top of his postscript P. A. Krasikov wrote: "encrypt."
—Ed.

E. D. Stasova (b. 1873) (Varvara Ivanovna, Gushcha)—s.-d.-Iskra-ist, at the time indicated a member of the Petersburg Committee. (For biographical information about her see "Lenin Collection" V, p. 594-595.)

Vanya—V. P. Krasnukha.

2) The letter of Lenin was written after receipt by him on September 24, 1902 of a letter from V. N. Shaposhnikova (secretary of P.K.) of September 20, 1902 (see notebook of archive No. 1426). In addition the letter has a postscript by N. K. Krupskaya addressed to V. N. Shaposhnikova and dated 24/IX.

3) On July 4 (June 21) 1902 I. I. Radchenko informed Lenin of the agreement reached with the Petersburg Union of Struggle for the purpose of reorganizing the Committee in the direction of the organizational principles of Iskra, about the introduction of N. P. into the commission for the reorganization of the Committee, and asked Lenin to give a "concrete outline of the plan of local work in connection with the overall Russian." In response Lenin gave his "outline of the plan" in his letter written between July 6-16, 1902 and published in Lenin's Works, vol. V, p. 135-139. A. S. Tokarev, a member of the Petersburg Union of Struggle who returned in August after a summer vacation, raised a furious campaign for the annulment of the unification of the Petersburg Union of Struggle with Iskra achieved in July 1902 and for the expulsion ("knocking out") from the center of the Petersburg Committee of representatives of the Russian Organization of Iskra.

Knocker—pseudonym of A. S. Tokarev, established in the correspondence of Petersburg Iskra-ists with the Iskra editorial board in 1902; the pseudonym was formed as follows: in August N. K. Krupskaya reported to I. I. Radchenko in Petersburg that the editorial board of "Workers' Cause" had received from some members of the Petersburg Committee a letter in which they declared that "the steps which Nikolay Petrovich [the Iskra Petersburg Committee. —Ed.] is taking with respect to Fekla [Iskra. —Ed.] are being taken against their wishes and that in the fall they will come and knock out those who have taken these steps."

A. S. Tokarev (Knocker)—s.-d., member of the Petersburg Union of Struggle, Economist; from August 1902, "having returned from summer vacation," stood at the head of the campaign of Economists against the summer decisions of the Petersburg Committee, which recognized Iskra in July 1902 as its guiding organ and included in its center a representative of the Russian organization of Iskra; in mid-September 1902 T. called a meeting of the Committee of the Petersburg Union in its previous composition and raised the question of the illegality of the summer decision; T. waged a fierce struggle to strengthen the influence of Economists on the organization, using demagogically against Iskra all the petty-bourgeois sentiments of the intelligentsia and workers; under the influence of T. the Workers' Organization separated from the general Committee and released in September (October according to new style) 1902 the first leaflet with a protest against the summer decisions of the Petersburg Committee, "made without the knowledge of" the "Workers' Organization," and in October 1902 a second leaflet with an independent programmatic statement "of the Committee of the Workers' Organization"; from December 1902 there appeared a reaction of the workers against the decomposition produced by T. in the Petersburg organization; in February 1903 T. was arrested.

4) Splinter—revolutionary pseudonym of P. A. Krasikov in 1902-1903.

5) After the departure of I. I. Radchenko from Petersburg, between September 11 and 20, 1902, a plenum of the Petersburg Committee took place, at which A. S. Tokarev, on behalf of a group who had been absent with him before (M. A. Poloboayrinova-Lessgaft and others), declared the summer decisions of the Committee on recognizing Iskra as the guiding organ and on merger with the organization of Iskra illegal on the basis of the statute of the Petersburg Union of Struggle, according to which such principled questions should be decided in the presence of all members of the Committee. During discussion of this statement the plenum sharply divided into two sides, mutually excluding each other. Each side demanded the right to call itself the Petersburg Committee. The plenum reached no definite decisions on this question.

6) At the September 1902 plenum of the Petersburg Committee A. S. Tokarev "threatened" to bring the question of schism in the Petersburg Committee to the press.

7) The letter of P. N. Lepeshinskiy, about which Lenin speaks, was written by N. K. Krupskaya on September 27 (see notebook of archive No. 1369).

*) The statement of the Petersburg Committee—"To all Russian s.-d. organizations,"—dated July 1902, appeared in Petersburg as a separate leaflet; published in No. 26 of Iskra, from October 28 (15). The history of this statement is as follows. On August 2 (July 20) 1902, when V. P. Krasnukha was already abroad, I. I. Radchenko wrote Lenin in response to his July letter (see Works, vol. V, p. 134-135), of the agreement of the Petersburg Committee and the Committee of the Workers' Organization to express in print their solidarity with Iskra and entrusted to V. P. Krasnukha to draw up in London a draft of such a statement" on behalf of these organizations. The draft was composed, but its publication in Iskra was delayed as a result of the campaign raised by Economists under the leadership of A. S. Tokarev against the rapprochement of the Petersburg Committee with Iskra.

65.
TO DRESDEN 1).
27 IX 02 [London].

I received your letter. Thank you very much for the detailed reply.

Before Vicount's arrival, in accordance with your wishes, I shall neither raise the general question of Finances nor communicate about your letter except in general terms: neither about how you define the composition of the "possessors," nor about what precisely the sum is that you indicate, nor about how soon (all at once immediately or in parts) you can give it. In any case we shall have vertrauliche *) talks with Vicount on all the most important questions — so I shall first show him your letter and together with him decide about, so to speak, the limits of further communication of the contents of this letter.

I would personally be inclined to the view that it is better for now not to announce the entire sum to anyone (keep it to ourselves), and about the possibility of obtaining it all at once — absolutely to no one either, for now there are masses of "possible" expenditures, "possible" enterprises. The abundance of branches puts "at the disposal" of Iskra a bunch of people on condition of maintaining all of them, but if we undertake this broadly, easily and thoughtlessly, we shall find ourselves after 1/2 year — a year "without anything." Meanwhile, if one is more "tight-fisted," then a rather large number of peripheral enterprises "get by on their own means." It is better in view of this to handle the matter the old way (i.e., to tell all participants in the affair thus): You can give quite a lot more, say "over 10 thousand," but, firstly, not all at once, and, secondly, you wish to give only in case of dire necessity, recommending that we ourselves seek regular sources of current expenses. I repeat, this is for now my personal opinion; as to Vicount's opinion I do not yet know. Here with Vicount we wanted to raise the question of a certain "amicable," (friendly) demarcation of Functions, proceeding from the idea that it is better at last to take advantage of peace to create a solid modus vivendi *), than to postpone things again until a (chance) conflict. But whether this will succeed, whether we shall decide it thus, whether it will be convenient to raise the question — all this is still unknown.

Right now we are in desperate straits with money, and there are urgent expenses. Therefore please send, if possible, immediately 2,000 marks: what you can of them — at once, and what must be issued as a draft, as soon as possible (and inform me when it arrives). But drafts should already be, in my view, much larger: issue 25 thousand rubles and keep it with you, so that we can obtain it from you soon. Otherwise we literally cannot manage: we have already run up a debt of 150 rubles, next week we are postponing payment of 50 rubles. For departures (necessary) we need about 300 rubles, for local expenses — about 200 soon, etc. Write as soon as possible how you have arranged matters, when and how much will be received by you.

I shall pass on [your message] to Brok. We have masses of people and excessive hustle. And still many more are arriving in the coming days!

You write nothing about your plans for arrival, and very indefinitely about your health: only that you feel poorly, but why and how? I am still troubled by the absence of news from home.

Well, be in good health. Yours, Lenin.

*) N. K. Krupskaya reported the following regarding this letter:
"This is a letter to Aleksandra Mikhailovna Kalmykova (aunt), on whose means 'Iskra' was maintained. Vicount — Potresov. Kalmykova at this time lived abroad. The conversation was about not communicating the possibility of obtaining a large sum even to the other members of the editorial board of 'Iskra.' 'About friendly demarcation of Functions' — this apparently refers to the demarcation of Functions with the Group 'Osvobozhdeniye Truda,' which was supposed to be given 'Zarya,' while retaining 'Iskra' with Martov, Potresov, and Vladimir Ilyich. 'Here with Vicount we wanted to raise the question' — precisely with Potresov did Vladimir Ilyich speak more openly than with anyone else about relations with the Group 'Osvobozhdeniye Truda' (see the letter 'How Iskra Almost Went Out,' 'Leninskii Sbornik' I, p. 33), with which much had been experienced together, anger at Plekhanov, etc. A. M. Kalmykova was aware of this. Potresov was very close to her, she knew him since childhood. That this letter was addressed to Kalmykova is indicated by the postscript about news from home. Kalmykova knew Anna Ilyinichna. Brok — Yakubova."

A. M. Kalmykova (d. 1926) — organizer of financing of 'Iskra'; in early 1902 was placed under police surveillance for three years; exile was replaced for her by departure abroad; arriving abroad in early spring 1902, K. chose Dresden as her place of residence. (For a brief biographical note on K. see 'Leninskii Sbornik' VI, pp. 76-77.)

A. A. Yakubova-Takhtareva (d. 1917) (Brok) — S.D., member of the Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary S.D.; lived in London. (For a biographical note on Y.-T. see 'Leninskii Sbornik' VI, pp. 196-197.)

Leninskii Sbornik VIII

66.
TO BAKU.
27/IX [1902 London].

Received letter from 1/IX *), contents passed on to Matryona2). However she writes that she also received a letter from you, and reports that the second package was received. The matter will probably proceed now. Matryona is working very carefully with the packing. We shall try to deliver about 15 poods. We are taking payment on ourselves for now, but we are in very bad straits with money, therefore try to arrange the financial part as soon as possible. (Add more emphatically about money.) **)

We most earnestly ask you to inform us in the most detailed manner about the distribution of the goods you receive 3). This is necessary in view of the fact that goods go out from us by other routes as well, so it must be that there be no confusion in delivery. Determine which cities it is most convenient for you to serve, where there are connections, etc. Report where, how much, and what has been delivered. For now here are addresses for delivery in Kharkov and Odessa ***). Do you need people to distribute the goods? If yes, then get in touch immediately with comrade Pavel, who is suitable for this role (illegal). Key Korobeniki, address Ekaterinoslav, etc. All the best.

*) Letter of L. B. Krasin from 14 (1) September was recopied by N. K. Krupskaya in notebook arch. D5 1342. In his letter L. B. Krasin, informing of receipt of a package with literature, proposes, in view of the expensiveness of the route, to
*) — 14 September n.s. Ed.
**) Words in brackets were inserted by Lenin. Ed.
***) Addresses in the manuscript are not given. Ed.

send batches of literature in 4-5 poods in weight 3-4 times a month. In Batum literature was supposed to be thrown into the water at night from the ship's deck. This circumstance required special packing. A. S. Enukidze retrieved the literature together with a smuggler hired for this purpose.

2) Matryona — revolutionary pseudonym of P. G. Smidovich in 1902-1903.

P. G. Smidovich (b. 1874) (Matryona) — S.D.-Iskraite; came abroad in late 1901 and entered the Berlin group assisting 'Iskra' from June-December 1902 worked on assignment from the 'Iskra' editorial board in Marseille on transport of 'Iskra' (route Marseille-Batum, where literature was received by "horses"); in autumn 1902 was admitted as a member of the League together with a group of Iskraites who had fled from the Kiev prison; in early 1903 left for Russia to organize illegal printing presses. (For a biographical note on S. see 'Leninskii Sbornik' VII, pp. 143-144.)

3) Goods — conspiratorial name for 'Iskra' literature.

After the Bialystok conference Lenin put forward the slogan: the "principal task" of the Russian Organization of 'Iskra' was now preparation for a congress (see Lenin's letter to G. M. Krzhizhanovsky of 6 May, p. 232). Members of the O.K. [Organizational Committee], elected at the Bialystok conference, except for the representative of the Foreign Committee of the Bund (K. Portney or A. Kremer?), were arrested. The surviving Bundist from arrest (A. M. Zeldov), participant in the Bialystok conference, was apparently abroad in May 1902. Here it was decided (under what circumstances and by which organizations is not established) that he would return to Russia and, with the help of those S.D. organizations which had participated in the Bialystok conference, restore the O.K.

On 22 June 1902 Lenin writes to I. I. Radchenko in Petersburg about the necessity of meeting with the Bundist (A. M. Zeldov?), but to take the matter of creating the O.K. firmly into its own hands and achieve that the secretariat in the O.K. belong to a member of the Russian Organization 'Iskra' (see p. 244). The meeting of I. I. Radchenko with the "Bundist" did not take place for reasons unknown to us. Meanwhile in June 1902 I. I. Radchenko, with the help of Lenin's just-published pamphlet "What is to Be Done?" and thanks to the presence in the center of the Petersburg Committee of Iskraites V. P. Krasnukha, E. D. Stasova, and I. I. Shtremel, succeeded in inducing the Petersburg Union to reorganize the Union in the spirit of the organizational principles of 'Iskra': elimination of the division of the organization into an intelligentsia and a working part, creation of a general ("central") non-elective committee, introduction into this committee of a member of the Organization 'Iskra' and expression of solidarity with 'Iskra' on programmatic, tactical, and organizational questions. After this reorganization the Petersburg Committee became a solid base on which Lenin decided to rely in creating an Iskraite O.K.

On 15 August in London a meeting took place of Lenin with V. P. Krasnukha (from the Petersburg Union), P. A. Krasikov (from the Russian Organization 'Iskra'), and V. A. Noskov (from the Northern Union) who had arrived from Russia. At this meeting, about the results of which N. K. Krupskaya reports in her letter to I. I. Radchenko of 16 August (p. 272), an "unofficial nucleus" of the O.K. was created, whose task was to constitute the official O.K.

V. A. Noskov, who entered the unofficial nucleus of the O.K. on 15 August, soon left it, having fallen out with P. A. Krasikov. The result of the work of this "unofficial" O.K. was the conference in Pskov about which P. A. Krasikov writes to the 'Iskra' editorial board in his October letter (see "Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya" № 6 (77)-7 (78) for 1928, p. 444) and at which the O.K. was constituted. We list the stages of work preceding the convening of the conference: 1) meeting of I. I. Radchenko and V. P. Krasnukha in Petersburg after the latter's arrival from London and before I. I. Radchenko's departure from Petersburg, i.e., around 10 September 1902; at this meeting a plan of action was worked out and roles distributed; 2) 14 September I. I. Radchenko left with this plan for Samara for a meeting with G. M. Krzhizhanovsky; here it was decided: "until such time as Olga [Organizational Committee. Ed.] functions officially, to divide into 3 bureaus: Sonya [Samara. Ed.], Petya [Kiev. Ed.] and Kolya [Petersburg. Ed.], standing in close contact with each other and united by lively correspondence, traveling members, and relations with Fekla [editorial board of 'Iskra'. Ed.]. Each will meet with his neighbors, with Sonya taking on relations with Akulina [printing presses. Ed.]. By the count of transport [expenditures for transporting 'Iskra' literature. Ed.] and for Fekla, Sonya's share is 400 r. monthly, Petya and Kolya 800 r. each...We entrust all accounts [all transport routes. Ed.] to the management of one person — Kasyan." "The Archive of the bureau" of the Russian Organization 'Iskra' was decided to be gradually transferred to Petersburg to Krasnukha (from the letter of G. M. Krzhizhanovsky to Lenin of 24 (8) September, see "Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya" № 6 (77)-7 (78) for 1928, p. 460). At the head of the Samara bureau stood G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, at the head of the Kiev bureau — F. V. Lengnik, at the head of the Petersburg bureau — V. P. Krasnukha; I. I. Radchenko undertook a tour of cities (Baku, Batum, Kharkov, Poltava, Moscow, Pskov, Petersburg, Libava, Orel, Kiev, etc.); 3) around 20 September in Samara talks took place with a representative of the "Southern Worker" group about unification with the Organization 'Iskra' in the O.K. work: in October these talks were continued in Poltava through F. V. Lengnik and L. D. Trotsky; as a result of talks agreement was obtained from the "Southern Worker" group on entry into the O.K.; and in № 27 of 'Iskra,' from 14 (1) November, there appeared an "Open Letter from the gr. Southern Worker" expressing solidarity with 'Iskra'; 4) P. A. Krasikov, being abroad until mid-October, held talks with the Bund on the question of restoration of the O.K.; and 5) the conference for constituting the O.K. was set for mid-November 1902; at the conference there were supposed to be represented: the Petersburg Committee, the Russian Organization 'Iskra', the "Southern Worker" group, the Bund, Volga cities, and the 'Iskra' editorial board.

Lenin's notes, which are mentioned in the letter printed below, were made by him at the meeting of 15 August; unfortunately, they have not been preserved.

67.
V. I. LENIN — P. A. KRASIKOV
TO PETERSBURG.
[11 November 1902 London1).]

Dear friend! I cannot find my notes from our meeting here. Besides, what are they for. The meeting had a consultative character, and you two, of course, remember better than I what happened. To restore officially what happened I cannot and could not even had I possessed fragmentary notes, written exclusively for myself sometimes not in words but in signs. If something serious needs deciding, — write a definite proposal, an official query to us (in the ed[itorial board]) and we shall answer at once. And if there are not yet grounds for that, then after all we have fully agreed about general tactics.

I was very, very pleased to learn that you pushed the O.K. matter ahead quickly and constituted it from six [members]. I am only surprised that you co-opted others before formal constitution, before summoning the Bund? After all the opposite was planned? This, however, is not very important if you are convinced that no inconveniences can arise.

Be more strict with the Bund! Write to the foreign side too as strictly as possible (to the Bund and to "Rabochee Delo"), reducing the function of the foreign side to such a minimum that it cannot in any case acquire significance. You can entrust the technique of the congress to special delegates from your side or special agents of yours: do not entrust this business to anyone and do not forget that the foreign public is poor in conspiracy.

Only outline the order of business of the congress generally. Send us a query requesting that we communicate our (editorial) order of business and who we have as referents and how many delegates from us (from the ed[itorial board]) can be. Speed up the congress with all your might.

Try to obtain mandates for those who have fled: this will economize expenditures.

Report without fail precisely and to the point about every official step of the O.K. And one more thing: "Rabochee Delo" is dying and it would be very important for you (from the O.K.) to send them not a scolding but serious admonition about the importance of unification, about the benefits of humility and so forth.

So hurry up! We shall obtain a small amount of money if necessary.

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

11/XI.

Two of your letters have been received, but one — the first, apparently — was lost, so we do not know who such Foma is1). We received a letter from Foma, but he garbled the address and therefore we cannot do anything. However, the enterprise is not feasible anyway (in Romania we have no one through whom to send literature, and to send directly to the border is impossible). As for the man sent by Kurtz,2) he turned out to be a liar, a braggart, and chiefly a chatterbox. He blabbed and scandalized all of Galicia. Did a terrible job damaging matters for Dementyev and as a result was arrested with addresses, etc., because of some childish escapade. In short, he did us a bad turn.

About river business 3) Grandfather writes.

*) In notebook arch. № 1415 there is a postscript by N. K. Krupskaya to this letter with the notation "11/XI"; the postscript is printed below.
2) Who is in question is not established.
3) River — conspiratorial name for O.K.

68.
TO LONDON.
[6/XII] 23/XI [1902 Kharkov], received 11/XII.

Yuri asks to communicate to Fekla the following: since Yuri does not know whether Fekla received news about the position of affairs in Olga, therefore he briefly sets forth what happened 1). For reasons unknown for now Boris, i.e., the Bund representative... *). It was decided: 1) to constitute without him; 2) to co-opt; 3) to communicate this to Boris and propose that he join; 4) upon receiving his answer to issue an announcement. The composition turned out as follows: from Petersburg — Grazhdanin, from Yuri — Somov 2) (acquaintance of Pakhomy) from Fekla — Kasyan. Co-opted were: Ignat, Kurtz, representative of the north — Sergei **) 3), Lapon', and Kler. Two candidates were named for the moment4). In general terms a division of labor was outlined: bureau in Petersburg; transport — Kasyan, editing of general leaflets entrusted to Yuri. As for essential questions (criterion for determining the right to participate in the congress, elaboration of questions for the future congress to be proposed to committees), they were only outlined, as nothing could be decided until clarification of Boris's relation to Olga. At present the position of affairs has somewhat changed. Lapon', Kasyan, Grazhdanin have been arrested, a letter from Lapon' to Fekla was seized5), in which matters concerning Olga were set forth. In view of this Olga introduced two candidates — Zaichik 6) ...***) one from... (Sergei) — a person unknown to Fekla, about whom Ignat will inform her at a personal meeting — he will probably be with Fekla soon. It is impossible to delay further with the announcement after the gendarmes learned about Olga from the letter, and therefore it was decided to issue a leaflet now; first of all *) we are sending it to you for printing in the newspaper. The bureau for now will be in Kharkov. The financial side with Zaichik in Moscow. Write for now to Kharkov (cipher Yuri), Kiev, and Moscow.

It is necessary that suitable people for Olga be transferred here as soon as possible (for example Pero 7)), for satisfactory organization of the affair requires many people. Let Fekla send her project of congress questions so that Olga can be guided by them in the elaboration of her project. The North will be toured by Pasha, one of the representatives of Yuri *). Ignat asks to publish a pamphlet on organizational questions. Yuri proposes as a precaution to change the ciphers for Fekla and Yuri and to communicate this to the appropriate people. Letters for Yuri and Olga for now write to the address of Mut'8).

*) E. Ya. Levin reports on official constitution of the O.K. at the Pskov conference around 15 November 1902.

Olga — conspiratorial name for O.K.

Yuri — pseudonym of E. Ya. Levin — member of the "Southern Worker" group.

2) Somov — pseudonym of E. Ya. Levin in 1902 for work in the O.K.

3) Sergei — pseudonym of A. M. Stopani for the O.K.

A. M. Stopani (b. 1871) (Sergei, Tura) — S.D. Iskraite, member of the Northern Union. (For biographical note on S. see 'Leninskii Sbornik' VI, pp. 117-118.)

Ignat — pseudonym of P. A. Krasikov for work in the O.K.

4) Candidates for membership in the O.K. in case of failure were outlined: G. I. Okulova and an unknown person from the Northern Union.

5) P. N. Lepeshinsky, I. I. Radchenko, V. P. Krasnukha were arrested between 17 and 19 November 1902. The mentioned letter is published in the book P. N. Lepeshinsky "Na Povoroте" [At the Turn]. Giz. 1922, pp. 130-131.

6) Zaichik — revolutionary pseudonym of G. I. Okulova in 1902.

7) Pero — revolutionary pseudonym of L. D. Trotsky.

L. D. Trotsky (b. 1879) (Pero) — S.D. Iskraite; fled in summer 1902 from Siberian exile; in October 1902 was entrusted with conducting in Poltava talks with the "Southern Worker" group on the question of the group's entry into the O.K.; in October-November T. left for abroad.

8) Roza Antonovna Mut'. Kharkov. T-vo Nevskoi nityoi manufaktury — address for letters from abroad to the Kharkov Committee in 1902.

*) Here N. K. Krupskaya noted: "(?)" Ed.

69.
TO KHARKOV.
[Not before 11 December 1902 London1).]

Lenin writes. We are very pleased with the successes and energy of the O.K. It is extremely important to apply all efforts immediately to carry matters through to the end and as quickly as possible. Try to replace the member from Petersburg more quickly (it would be good with Ignat) and write in more detail about how in different places (committees) they reacted to the O.K. Will Ignat see Fekla soon**? We need to know more precisely and quickly.

The list of questions was outlined by us approximately as follows (order of successive discussion): 1) relation to Boris? (If only a Federation, then split at once and meet separately. Must prepare everyone for this.) 2) program. 3) organ of the party (newspaper. New or one of the existing ones. Insist on the importance of this preliminary question). 4) organization of the party (basic principle: two central institutions, not subordinate to each other. a) Central Organ — ideological guidance. Abroad. b) Central Committee — in Russia. All practical direction. Regular and frequent meetings between them and certain rights of mutual participation or sometimes mutual co-optation. Extremely important to prepare the ground beforehand for carrying out this basic principle and complete clarification of it by everyone. Then: the largest possible centralization. Autonomy of local committees in local affairs — with the right of veto by the C.C. in exceptional cases. Regional organizations only with the consent and approval of the C.C.) 5) Various questions of tactics: terror, professional unions, legalization of working movement, strikes, demonstrations, insurrection, agrarian policy and work in the peasantry and in the army, agitation in general; leaflets and pamphlets, etc. *) and so forth, here the order is not observed. 6) Relation to other parties (Liberation, Soc.-Rev., Poles, Latvians, and so forth.). 7) Reports of delegates (very important that there be reports from each committee and as complete as possible (prepare now and for safety's sake submit copies to the O.K. for sending to us). Always try to characterize local S.-R.'s and evaluate their strength and connections in the reports). 8) foreign groups and organizations (Rabochee Delo, Borba, Zhizn', Svoboda. Entrust to a commission or the C.C. to work out a plan for unifying them). 9) May 1. 10) Congress of 1903 in Amsterdam. 11) Internal organizational questions: Finances, type of organization of committees, entrusting the C.C. with transport and distribution of literature, etc. Part of this, probably, will have to be discussed in commissions.

I repeat that this is only an approximate outline, and the order only relatively for points 1-5 was discussed together here. Moreover, from editorial board members I was in favor of putting point 3 in one of the first places (i.e., precisely third), while another member (Pakhomy) — in favor of putting it after point 5. I consider it important to decide point 3 first so as to give battle immediately to all opponents on the basic and broad question and to make clear to ourselves the whole picture of the congress (respectively**): to break up for a serious reason).

Clarify whether you will have referents and on what questions (ad 5 — in detail).

What pamphlet does Ignat ask to publish? Not the letter to Eremе2)?

Without fail obtain from each committee (and group) an official and written answer whether they recognize the O.K. This is necessary immediately.

I advise issuing the announcement about the O.K. also in Russia (i.e., not only in Iskra print it): even if only hectographed, publish it.

*) Words: "agitation in general; leaflets and pamphlets and etc." represents a later insertion by Lenin, written above the words: "etc." Ed.
**) — and respectively. Ed.

The general editorial board project of questions and list of our referents we shall send when we consult about this with all members of the editorial board living in different countries now.

Immediately designate members of the O.K. in the main centers (Kiev, Moscow, Petersburg) and give special rendezvous points to these members so that we can send all those traveling not otherwise than into complete disposal of the O.K. This is very, very important.

Finally, one more thing: the meeting of Ignat with Fekla should be arranged after 1) he has seen as much as possible of everyone and everything; 2) you receive from everyone official recognition of the O.K. 3) you officially notify Rabochee Delo that they will have a full-power member of the O.K. Only under such conditions will the meeting of Ignat with Fekla be able to serve for further serious business steps. Don't let Ignat hurry therefore with these preparatory measures and don't forget that with Fekla he should come armed already with formally recognized and the widest (note!) authority.

*) Lenin answers with this letter the letter of E. Ya. Levin from 6 December (23 November) 1902, which he received on 11 December.
2) Under the title "Letter to Eremе" was known a manuscript circulating in late 1902, published in June 1903 by the Siberian Committee as a separate pamphlet with the subtitle: "Letter to a Comrade on Our Organizational Tasks."

Eremе — revolutionary pseudonym of A. A. Schneerson.

A. A. Schneerson (Eremе) — S.D. Iskraite, at the indicated time was a member of the propagandist group of the Petersburg Committee. (For biographical note on S. see 'Leninskii Sbornik' VI, p. 271.)

70.
TO LONDON.
[17] 4/XII [1902 Kiev] on Tar *).

Affairs here are in the following situation. The Rabochee Delo people seem to have turned special attention to us. Last Sunday 27/XI *) the committee accepted enthusiastically the proposal of the O.K. and promised it every assistance. And after a few days (last Friday) the lads from Rabochee Delo took advantage of the absence of some comrades and produced a real coup d'état**) in the same committee. It was proposed to exclude from membership all the absent (!!), and to write to Iskra so that it not print the previously issued leaflet announcing Iskra as the desirable party organ. You probably wrote about this. But I was instructed to tell you to make sure you print this leaflet. And if it did not reach you, then print a notice that the Kiev Committee informs you of its complete joining of the Iskra Organization and complete solidarity with the program and organizational plan of Iskra. This will serve as a signal for decisive battle with the blockheads here.

All this happened rather unexpectedly for everyone, although it turned out that they succeeded in confusing many workers and, moreover, the most influential ones. Now bitter struggle awaits. The matter will come, of course, to a split: at least this idea is acquiring more and more supporters here.

Affairs in general are bad, it seems. Everywhere in the final analysis it turns out that local work is being conducted mainly by Economists and this explains all these setbacks, positively everywhere: here, in Petersburg, and, as we hear, in Kharkov. It is necessary to approach this work more closely. We need masses of pamphlets on programmatic themes and capable agitators who could travel around the cities to explain these same questions: how useful Pero would be to us now!

Capital, translation by Struве, the product of the numerator by the denominator of the first fraction means the page of the book and the signature Dusya — This was established for one young comrade for correspondence with you. Why have we had no letters from you for so long? Write more often.

We are still sitting without literature although it is now more needed than ever. Why it is not here we don't understand; from there neither sight nor sound — could there be another failure?

KGPU (now my pseudonym will be Zarin).

*) — Tar pseudonym of K. M. Takhtarev (1872-1925) — S.D. Economist, at one time editor of "Rabochaya Mysl'." (For biographical note on T. see 'Leninskii Sbornik' VI, p. 196.)
*) — reverses. Ed.

71.
TO KIEV.
27/XII [1902 London].

We received the letter about the coup d'état*) and answer at once. We are astonished how Zarin*) could allow such a scandal!! Here are the fruits of his mistake of not entering the Committee! — we insisted on this long ago**). We shall not print a notice for now because we have received neither announcements nor letters against it. Absolutely open a war, force Zarin to enter, draw up a protocol about the split (or about the number of votes pro and contra***)) and issue a local leaflet about the causes of the split (respectively****) divergence). To print a statement without such official documents about each of your steps — makes no sense. Be sure to formalize each step of the Rabochee Delo people and yours against them and don't yield an inch. Must catch them at all costs on the fact that they are against the O.K., and you are for it. It is precisely on the basis of recognition (respectively non-recognition) of the O.K. that you must give immediately everywhere and always a general battle: pass this on to Zarin and his close comrades more insistently.

So: let Zarin display triple energy and defend Kiev — this is his first duty.

Literature in Russia should be with you soon. Be sure to send no less than 2 poods to Petersburg****) our people, without fail.

*) — in the coup d'état. Ed.
**) Beginning with the words: "We are astonished," in the manuscript is enclosed in parentheses and crossed out, apparently by N. K. Krupskaya when recopying. Ed.
***) — for and against. Ed.
****) — and respectively. Ed.
*****) Here N. K. Krupskaya inserted: "(new rendezvous for arrivals)." Ed.

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

Write please whether Zarin was at Lapon''s? Where is Ignat? We received a letter from Tura 2) from Pskov; he is completely uninformed about the plans of Yuri, Ignat and Zarin, and with Sonya it is even worse — she apparently knows nothing about the O.K. About the fact that in Moscow everything and everyone except Zaichik have been exposed you probably already know3).

1) Zarin — revolutionary pseudonym of F. V. Lengnik.
2) Tura — revolutionary pseudonym of A. M. Stopani.
3) This refers to arrests in November 1902 of I. A. Theodorovitch, S. L. Vainstein, V. V. Kozhevnikova, N. L. Meshcheryakov, and somewhat later (22 (9) December) — G. I. Okulova (Zaichik).

72.
V. I. LENIN — V. I. LAVROV AND E. D. STASOVA
TO PETERSBURG.
27/XII [1902 London] *).

Received Vlas's2) letter. We shall offer such help as we can. We have long seen your desperate situation and have been thinking about help.

But you must absolutely write us the exact history of the split in Petersburg3) and immediately. Answer point by point:

1) Was the Organizational Commission (summer) elected by one Union of Struggle (= intelligentsia Committee?) or also by the working organization? 2) when exactly was it elected? 3) is there an exact record of its authority (i.e., what was it entrusted with?) 4) What is the incorrectness of its election, in the opinion of Vyshebaly and Co.? 5) were there delegates from the working organization in the Organizational Commission (two?) and who elected them? 6) From where did they drive out and drive out Vyshibaly: from the Organizational Commission or from the intelligentsia committee or from the working organization? 7) What is this working organization now writing its declarations? new? reorganized? when? how? 8) why were we not sent the committee's September leaflet of the working organization? 9) why was no handwritten leaflet against them issued? — or would you have sent us a counter-statement? No move of theirs can be left without an answer. 10) What is this C.C. now? Is there still an Organizational Commission? Are there workers on your side? Why are they not forming a counter-organization? Why do your workers not protest against Vyshebaly's workers and their committee?

To Gusche.

Immediately send us new, completely clean rendezvous for arrivals4). Do not give these (our) rendezvous to anyone else. Find a lodging in advance for hiding one person. Try especially to cover the traces of his relations with old members (Stasova*) and so forth), who are certainly on the lookout.

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

About literature from Kiev.

About the method of transporting Finnish literature.

On the south a transport was received — we gave them your new rendezvous and asked them to deliver literature to you.

Perhaps the beer account5) can be arranged thus. Let someone travel on horses from Terrioki to Sestroretsk or Lakhta and see how strict the inspection is there. If not too strict, then we can send clean people to transport at least some beer in small suitcases with false bottoms. Give a clean rendezvous for arriving people from us.

*) N. K. Krupskaya wrote above the letter: "Letter for Chayka and Gusche1)." Ed.

1) Chayka — revolutionary pseudonym of V. I. Lavrov.

V. I. Lavrov (Chayka) — S.D. Iskraite; from November 1902 was substitute for E. D. Stasova in the Petersburg Committee in case of failure; later wrote under the pseudonym Strelsky.

Gusche — pseudonym of E. D. Stasova in 1902-1903 for work in the Petersburg Committee.

2) Vlas — pseudonym of A. E. Rerikh for his work in the Petersburg Union of Struggle in 1900-1901.

A. E. Rerikh (b. 1876) (Vlas) — S.D. Iskraite; as a student of the Petersburg Forest Institute was part of the Working Organization; in February (n.s.) 1901 was arrested and exiled to Vyatka Province; in autumn 1902 fled from exile, joined the Iskraite Petersburg Committee and worked on unifying the worker and intelligentsia parts of the Petersburg organization.

3) Documents and a brief account of the history of the split are given in the note "Petersburg Split," published in № 30 of 'Iskra,' from 28 (15) December 1902.

4) The 'Iskra' editorial board intended to direct to Petersburg I. V. Babushkin, A. I. Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, and M. M. Essen.

5) Beer account — transport of literature via Stockholm — Finland — Petersburg.

*) N. K. Krupskaya corrected the word: "Stasova" to: "Gusche." Ed.

73.
N. K. KRUPSKAYA — BUREAU OF RUSSIAN ORGANIZATION "ISKRA"
TO SAMARA.
28/XII [1902 London].

Dear friends! It's been terribly long since I wrote you.

1) You canceled the old address and for the new one set very difficult conditions to carry out. Banks don't print account statements, and in all the corresponding newspapers and journals the paper is useless. Give such an address to which, if necessary, one could send any book.

2) We know of no address for Guskov.

3) Repeat the cipher Azra 1). Who is this?

4) Three hundred rubles we received long ago.

5) The young man is completely unnecessary to send to Semyon Semyonovich, in Semyon Semyonovich's there's a provocation somewhere2), and they themselves don't know where; it makes no sense to thrust people there when there are so few of them anyway.

6) The matrices (25) were sent to you long ago in the guise of a hat box; surely they were not received3)?

7) Did you receive the letter from the horses? They turn out to be alive.

8) It's not worth sending Uncle to Rostov; very many of the leaders of the Rostov strike now are abroad4), all of them are Iskraites and will influence the committee anyway. We have a mass of material on the Rostov strike — we shall publish a pamphlet soon5). It's also not worth sending Uncle to Perm; we intended him for Poltava in the vicinity of Yuri.

9) From your letter it follows that you for some reason have no idea at all what is happening in Russia, whereas the moment is very serious. After the failure at Kolya an Organizational Committee was nevertheless formed. Its composition includes: Yuri, Kurtz, Brut 6), Zaichik 7), Tura (representative of the north), Ignat, and one more unknown to us person8). The bureau for now is at Karolina's; the task of issuing all-Russian leaflets falls on Yuri; a transport group has been formed (Romeo).

Zaichik manages the financial side. Ignat is supposed to tour the committees to achieve recognition of the O.K. Meanwhile O.K. affairs are not going very well. First, Brut turned out to be completely uninformed; Tura is informed extremely poorly. Ignat's journey apparently is not entirely successful. For example, the Trudolyubtsy9) know nothing about the O.K. Staryha recognized the O.K.10), but nothing remains of her; only Zaichik is intact. In Kiev there was a scandal. The committee recognized the O.K., and after 5 days a split came out and part of the committee broke away and rose up against recognition of Iskra as the guiding organ. For Kurtz this was a complete surprise, which is of course the result of his mistake of not entering the committee. We strongly insisted on his entry into the committee — standing outside the committee, it is completely impossible to know the true state of affairs. — We hastened the congress in every way, but now affairs have changed considerably. The Petersburg split served as a signal for a series of scandals. Everywhere the Rabochee Delo people are raising their voices and egging the workers on against the intelligentsia. They send special people to the Iskraite committees and want to make it appear that everywhere workers are rising up against joining with Iskra.

Nadezhdin (Svoboda) published a supplement to the newspaper for workers Otkliki, which he intends to publish11) and so forth.

10) We have people for Russia, but no passports; i.e., blanks we have, but no good duplicates; because of this we could not send Pero. Send us duplicates. You can, they say, obtain them.

11) Finally, a piece of good news: Dementyev apparently finally organized transport well and now Kurtz has surely received a decent amount.

[Postscript by V. I. Lenin.]

The principal task now is to strengthen the O.K., give battle to all those who disagree on the basis of recognition of this O.K., and then prepare the congress as quickly as possible. Please do everything possible to insure correct understanding of this task by everyone and energetic implementation of it. It's about time for Brut to get moving on the scene! It's necessary to announce the O.K. more quickly.

*) Azra — revolutionary pseudonym of L. V. Nikolaev — S.D. Southern Worker. (For biographical note on N. see 'Leninskii Sbornik' VI, p. 194.)
2) Semyon Semyonovich — conspiratorial name for the Northern Union.

Provocation that collapsed the entire Northern Union organization in spring 1902 was the agent of the department of police L. P. Meshchikov.

3) Matrices № 25 of 'Iskra,' from 28 (15) September 1902, were sent for the printing office (Nizhny Novgorod?).

4) From the leaders of the November general strike in Rostov-on-Don who came abroad by that time were I. I. Stavsky, Z. Mikhailov, and Mochаlov ("Amvrosy"), author of the pamphlet "The Truth About Rostov Events."

5) Mochаlov's pamphlet on the Rostov Strike: "Amvrosy. The Truth About Rostov Events." With appendix of an article by [Plekhanov] "The Significance of the Rostov Events." Edition 'Zarya'. Stuttgart, came out in March 1903.

*) Brut — revolutionary pseudonym of G. M. Krzhizhanovsky in late 1902.

7) Zaichik — G. I. Okulova was arrested on 22 (9) December 1902 in Moscow; N. K. Krupskaya had not yet received word of this.

8) Who is in question is not established.

9) Trudolyubtsy — members of the Nizhny Novgorod committee A. I. and E. I. Piskunov and O. I. Chanin.

10) Recognition of the O.K. by the Moscow Committee is mentioned in № 34 of 'Iskra,' from 28 (15) February 1903, in the section "From the Party."

11) "Workers' Social-Democratic Newspaper-Journal" "Otkliki." Edition of the Revolutionary-Socialist Group," under this heading came out in December 1902 № 1 (the only one) of the newspaper-journal of the 'Svoboda' group. It had with it a small journal "Supplement to the Workers' Social-Democratic Newspaper-Journal Otkliki" № 1. Half the articles of this issue were devoted to the Petersburg split. Among the split's documents was cited the protest of the Committee of the Working Organization against the July 1902 resolution of the Petersburg Committee on recognition of 'Iskra' and 'Zarya' as guiding organs; the protest was dated September 1902.

E. O. Nadezhdin-Zelensky (d. 1905) — in 1901-1903 organizer of the 'Svoboda' group and editor of its publications. (For biographical note on N.-Z. see Works, Vol. V, p. 432.)

74.
TO PETERSBURG.
For Novishnaya*) from Lenin.
6/I [1903 London].

Dear friend! Regarding the "examination" 2) I must say that I cannot propose an examination program from here. Let all and each of the propagandists write about the program they are teaching or want to teach — then I shall answer in detail. You ask for more questions. Good. Only make sure you answer all of them: 1) what is the present statute of Petersburg Committee? 2) is there a "discussion"? 3) Its place in relation to the C.C. and the working organization? 4) The relation of the C.C. to the district organization and to worker groups? 5) why did the Iskraite workers silently allow the Vyshibaly workers3) to call themselves "Committee of the Working Organization"? 6) have measures been taken to keep watch on every step of the Petersburg Zubatovism? 7) are systematic lectures read (or are discussions arranged) in worker circles on the theme of organization, on the significance of "organization of revolutionaries"? 8) is it widely preached among workers that they and precisely they should as often and as widely as possible go into illegal status? 9) have measures been taken to increase tenfold correspondence from Petersburg, which we have not had shamefully long? 10) is it impressed on all workers the idea that it is precisely they who should organize a printing press for leaflets4) and proper distribution of them?

Here are ten questions for you. I await your answer and warmly shake your hand. Make sure to disappear at the first sign of being spied upon.

*) Novishnaya — presumably a pseudonym; see Editor's note to letter 72.

2) "Examination" refers apparently to a form of educational work in the organization; Lenin is suggesting not a formal examination program but a detailed questionnaire to be distributed to propagandists about their work.

3) Vyshibaly — Vyshibaev and his faction who had split from the Iskraite organization.

4) This refers to an illegal printing press which would be run by workers themselves.

II. TO V. BABUSHKIN
[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

1) Here are 2 addresses for correspondence for now (Kaufmann, Bologne 5)). Note the № of the addresses, and if you give them to anyone, then be sure to communicate the № as well; this is necessary so that we can print which № is being cancelled.

2) In Moscow there has been a collapse; Natasha and Ledi have been taken 6).

3) One route has begun operating; a transport has been received; it has been written that transport should be sent to you without delay.

4) The Organizational Committee continues to exist; it will soon issue a statement about itself. For now it is still weak, but we do not lose hope that it will grow stronger and will work to full capacity.

5) About duplicates, it has been written to Kiev; they have them, so they should send them to you as soon as possible; to Kiev as well, contacts have been given to two places for obtaining books. From Vilna they wrote that they have 10 tested Russian passports 7).

6) Give an address for letters to you from Russia. I will write again soon. Everyone sends greetings and wishes for success.

75.
1416
N. K. KRUPSKAYA — TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF "SOUTHERN WORKER"
IN KHARKOV.
10/1 [1903. London].

Letters from Zhenya (Yuri) of 23/XI, 26/XI and 16/XII and a letter from Karolina of 4/XII *) have been received. Concerning the materials we cannot say so definitively, since no dates are marked on them; generally speaking, materials have been received: materials signed by a cleric have been received. Mark the dates on the materials then it will be easier for us to answer inquiries. Statements from Olga (Alexander) Fekla (Mikhail) have not been received.

We are very pleased at Karolina's intention to acquaint Fekla with all her activities. This is absolutely necessary. Let members of the propaganda group describe their conversations with workers. The more concretely Fekla represents the matter to herself, the livelier will be the connection between her and local activists.

Did Zhenya receive Lenin's letter and the letter from Ignat 3)? Why does she answer so slowly? Does Zhenya know that Zaichik has perished. Is Zhenya connected with Sonya, Piter, Semyon Semyonovich, Olga Yuryevna 4), Romeo, the Kherson people 5) and so on? Inform us with whom you have connections. Give addresses and a key for letters from Russia. A letter about a printing press has been received from Baku 6). They write that they have been in contact with you and Sonya. Connect with Sonya about what should be done with them. We are turning this matter entirely over to Alexander 7).

Address for money: Heinrich Julius Gerson. Burgstr. 30/11 Berlin C., for Konstantinov.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA
TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF "SOUTHERN WORKER"
[Postscript by V. I. Lenin.]

Once more: we earnestly and urgently ask and beseech Zhenya to write us more frequently and in greater detail, in particular immediately, without fail on the very same day a letter is received, to notify us at least with a couple of lines of the receipt of our previous letters, of the reply from Boris, of the plan with "the statement". We still do not have this statement — it's simply a scandal! Finally: we earnestly advise releasing the statement as soon as possible. If Boris is being stubborn, then without him. We await the reply with impatience.

76.
1288
TO PETROGRAD.
15/1 [1903. London].

We have received [from here] (from abroad somewhere) a new Vyshibalov document, from October 1902, a program and principles of organization — confused and harmful 1). We are devilishly annoyed and offended that you are not sending us immediately and directly (in 2 copies to different addresses) all the Petersburg products. After all, it's simply a scandal that we still do not have the first leaflet of the Vyshibalovtsy (July — "protest" against the recognition of Iskra) and learned of it from the Replies 2)!! Is it really difficult to send leaflets, when all letters arrive perfectly? An even greater scandal is that you *) are so dragging out your replies: Ignat informed us that the reply leaflet to the Vyshibalovtsy nonsense was written by him long ago, but you *) left it in the marinade and not only replaced it with another, longer, limp and watery one, but in the end didn't publish a single one!!! And if it was impossible to publish, then was it really difficult to send it here in a letter?

What is the matter here, explain for Christ's sake: is it complete negligence on the part of someone from the committee (or the entire committee?) or conscious opposition and intrigue from within the committee?

We cannot rid ourselves of the impression, which flows inexorably from all this: namely, that the Vyshibalovtsy are steadily pushing you aside, deceiving you and any day now will "push you out" truly and finally.

V. I. LENIN — TO E. D. STASOVA

We would very much advise replacing the departed member of the O.K. from Petersburg 3) with Bogdan: he fully deserves it. And in general, it is evident that without professional revolutionaries the cause will never move forward one iota.

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

Your letter about holding back the polemic was received after № 30 4) had already come out. Have you received it, as well as the appendix to the Replies?

Have you received literature from the south?

As for Volja's transport group 5), it is necessary to persuade this group to join the transport organization of Iskra; it is necessary to unite all separate enterprises of this kind. Ignat has already taken steps in this direction, giving a contact to this group to Kostya (in charge of transport matters) 6). The southern route has been completely established; matters have been arranged with Romeo too; the only delay is that we cannot correspond with them at all. A contact to you was given to a certain Torgashev 7), a good fellow, but not yet settled, inexperienced, not initiated into any affairs. Place him somewhere in the technical work.

Dno 8) has already departed.

77.
1336
TO PETROGRAD.
16/1 [1903. London].

We have just received № 16 of the Worker's Thought from Geneva (apparently printed and even written by "Freedom", that is, by Nadezhdin), marked as the organ of "Spb. Committee". There too is a letter-correction from the Vyshibalovtsy, a trivial correction, essentially not a correction but a compliment to "Freedom" 1). If the Vyshibalovtsy insist that they are in solidarity with Zarya and Iskra, then this is obvious deceit, pure swindling: people want to gain time in order to strengthen themselves. Therefore we urgently and earnestly advise you to issue immediately (and if you cannot issue it, then send it here at once) a leaflet with a protest, in the name of the Committee, and in general reject all pacifying overtures and approaches; wage a decisive war, a merciless war against the Vyshibalovtsy, exposing their transition from social-democracy to the "revolutionary-socialist" "Freedom". We greet the energetic conduct of Novitskaya and once again ask you to continue in the same combative spirit, allowing not the slightest wavering. War to the Vyshibalovtsy and to hell with all peacemakers, people with "elusive views" and wafflers!! A small fish is better than a large cockroach. Better 2-3 energetic and completely devoted people than a dozen cowards. Write as often as possible, and without delay, give contacts to your workers (and characterizations of them), so that in case of a collapse we are not left high and dry.

V. I. LENIN — TO I. V. BABUSHKIN

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

We have received all 3 letters 2) and correspondence № 1; we did not reply to the first because there was no address; to the second we replied immediately upon receipt 3)). You should have already received that letter.

78.
1288
TO PETROGRAD.
16 I 03 [London].

We have just received № 16 of Worker's Thought (from Geneva) and from Petersburg №№ 2 and 3 of the Leaflets of Worker's Thought 1). Now it is already as clear as day that the Vyshibalovtsy are swindling you and leading you by the nose, insisting on agreement with Zarya and Iskra. Issue immediately a combative protest (if you are not able to publish it, send it here at once, and send a copy in any case); conduct a decisive war and carry it more widely into the midst of workers. Any delay and any reconciliation with the Vyshibalovtsy would now be not only arch-stupid but directly shameful. And while you have Bogdan, you cannot complain of a lack of people (support has been sent 2)). Reply immediately what steps you are taking.

V. I. LENIN — TO E. D. STASOVA

79.
1739
TO KIEV.
To Kurtz *
17 1 03 [London].

Yesterday we received "Kiev S.-D. Leaflet" № 1, from 30 November (sic!) through a third party. It's simply a scandal that our Iskra people always drag along in the rear! Why didn't Zarin send this leaflet in good time? Why didn't he write a word about this enterprise? We ask Zarin in the name of Christ to connect us directly with some member of the Committee, accurate, energetic, knowing everything that is happening. Every leaflet (whoever's it may be) should be sent immediately in 2 different addresses in 2 copies), one in an envelope, the other wrapped in a Russian newspaper. Then immediately we must connect with Vakar. We are very afraid that the Kiev Iskra people, thanks to their inactivity and spectatorial attitude, will befall the fate of Petersburg. About the receipt and distribution (NB) of literature too not a word!! How can this be!

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

Connect immediately with the Crimean organization (Olga Yuryevna) here is a contact to them *), they have been begging for literature for 2 months; send them about a pud; all expenses will be covered; inform them about the O.K.; arrange communications with them.

Why don't you answer anything about the passports; has a duplicate been sent to Bogdan; now everything depends on him and if he is lost because of a document, it is simply shameful. We are proposing Bogdan and Aleksandrov to the O.K.

V. I. LENIN — TO F. V. LENGNIK

80.
1434
V. I. LENIN — TO THE BUREAU OF THE RUSSIAN ORGANIZATION
OF "ISKRA"
IN SAMARA.
27/1 [1903. London].

The old man is writing. I have read your angry letter of 3/1 *) and am replying immediately. As for the correspondence of dogs 2) the secretary 3) will answer below: I myself cannot make out who is to blame, but we must absolutely be in constant contact, no less than twice a month, and until now this has not been the case, and we often know nothing about you for long periods. Do not forget that when we have no letters, we can do nothing, do not know whether people are alive, are forced, directly forced to consider them almost non-existent. You did not answer my question about Brut's movement: apparently there is little hope of good arrangement until this movement takes place. Now to business. In blaming us, you exaggerate our strength and influence: we agreed here about the O.K., insisted on its congress, on inviting you, wrote to you. We could do nothing more, absolutely nothing more, and are not responsible for anything. The root of the troubles is that Brut was not at the O.K., and everything thereafter was done without him (as without us) 4). We did not accept the unknown member (this is such-and-such **), a coward and foolish fellow, I knew him personally in Pskov, tied down by family and place and backward, good for nothing; because of him they already blamed Pankrat 5)) we did not move the bureau; we gave absolutely no "power" to Pankrat. But when it turned out that Pankrat was the only (NB NB) active person of the O.K., then as a result power could not help but be his. You write: there are people, but we do not have them, do not know them, do not see them. We have raged to the point of neurasthenia because of complete lack of personnel for the O.K., for which active, flying, free and illegal people are needed. Pankrat alone went over to illegality, went, began to fly, began to know everything — and of himself took on the rank of corporal. We did not interfere, naturally, because we could not interfere and did not want to interfere: there is no other!!! Understand this at last. Pankrat is lazy and careless, but he is clever, competent, knows his business, knows how to fight; one can get along with him. Now he is stuck [in Paris] for an unknown time and we are quarreling with him, driving him by the neck to Russia, because otherwise the O.K. is absolutely nothing. Soon "she" is going (brother of Akim) 6), we will try to introduce her into the O.K.; "she" seems to be energetic. "Peru" does not want to leave. There are no passports, no copies. If Brut moves to a close, lively place, then we can help him regain the bureau and everything will be arranged, maybe. Otherwise everything will go (if it goes) by the will of Allah, by the will of Pankrat, and by the will of "her", and we are helpless here.

Literature has gone out. Over 40 puds have been transported. We are printing the O.K. statement in № 32, which comes out the day after tomorrow.

Uncle is still on the sidelines (like Brut) and hasn't even gotten anywhere; if he had settled with Brut at least in Poltava, they would have taken the bureau for themselves.

I am very angry with Zarin: he does not write properly, is sluggish, knows nothing about Kiev, allowed a split under his very nose. To withdraw so from local matters is simply wild!! And how are we to blame that of 2 "equal members" of the O.K., Zarin "sits and is silent" while Pankrat nonetheless stirs? I think (surely do not know) that Zarin is a man of little initiative and moreover tied down by legality and place. And now such people naturally remain on the sidelines, truly, without our fault or will.

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

1) As for letters I will not calculate who is to blame; I have already written about this last time; I am not inclined to bicker; I will send each week, but you do the same too.

2) We always send envelopes to all addresses we have, although we are forced to do this through intermediaries, and therefore we cannot answer for absolute accuracy. 7 addresses were sent only by the time of sending № 30, and before that we had only one address.

3) The English address has already been sent to you.

4) Money received; the address is good. Nos. 25 and 28 we are sending.

5) Literature has been received in Petersburg (about seven puds) and in Kiev (about thirty); Zarin was written to many times to insist on equal distribution and in particular to take care of the toilers. But he does not write a word and what they are doing there with this literature, Allah knows. We have completely exhausted ourselves with the transport. Gursky, Dementyev, Tarsits, the Cook, Rosa, Matryona and a whole crowd of people are struggling over accounts, but we are helpless here 8).

6) We sent to Petersburg — Dobrovolsky and Bogdan; to Moscow — Aleksandrov; we will send another pair there too. To the toilers went Dimka's husband 9) to arrange experiments; "she" is going to Zemlyachka 10); what more can we do!!!

7) Address for passport copies: Heinrich Lenges. Liebfrauenstr. 37. Darmstadt.

8) The dogs are alive; they demand money, people. They say they wrote to Dasha and Zhenya. They ask for a person to be sent for negotiations. Addresses for letters and contacts *), key Sasha.

We wrote to them that now Alexander oversees their business, and we suggested to Zhenya immediately to consult with you on this question.

In Batum they have nothing. Keep in mind that our person from Marseille has left, so if you are thinking of renewing the affair, notify immediately so we can send a person at once.

9) From Schwarz 12) came a letter. You are terribly confusing the cipher; nothing can be understood. What cipher with Schwartz and where is it?

Who is Azr, we also could not understand.

10) Borne Nikolaevich has been arrested by the Germans 13).

81. 
1288 
V. I. LENIN — TO E. D. STASOVA
IN PETROGRAD.
28/1 [1903. London].

Why don't you answer about the № 16 of Worker's Thought, published in Geneva apparently by Nadezhdin? Will you really leave this without protest?? What a scandal that Leaflet № 1 of Worker's Thought was burned *): in it, of course, much needed to be corrected and substantially, but why wasn't it corrected? It's incomprehensible what is happening with you! Why has the printed leaflet of 200 copies been held up 2)? Send immediately every leaflet, yours and theirs, workers' and students', all without exception, with notations whether it can be cited and whether it was distributed — each in 2 copies to 2 addresses or simply in envelopes or wrapped inside a legal newspaper and sent by parcel post, only sturdy parcel post cross-tied.

Why don't you send reports to Iskra from the Spb. Committee about money collected by you? Do this by all means. Correspondence from workers in Petersburg is very necessary: obtain it for God's sake, more assiduously, especially about unemployment, then about the impression made by literature.

Revise Leaflet № 1 of Worker's Thought, writing it more restrained and more businesslike and be sure to publish the history of the split within the Committee. Nadezhdin's "Worker's Thought" cannot, understand: cannot be left without public protest.

82.
1767
V. I. LENIN — TO N. K. KRUPSKAYA
IN LONDON.
[Before 7 March 1903. Paris *)]

Propose to answer thus:

"In our opinion, the question of the 'ordre du jour' **) stands as follows 2). This question is decided finally, obviously, by the congress itself and only by it. Therefore, to dispute about deciding votes on this point is completely useless. Further, the O.K. has been recognized by a mass of committees as already possessing 'exclusive initiative' in convening the congress 3). From this it follows that the preliminary preparation of the congress, including the preliminary preparation (respectively) propaganda) of the ordre du jour is entrusted exclusively to the O.K. Therefore, to propose to vote on the 'preliminary' ordre du jour to anyone else whatsoever is completely unnecessary: this cannot have any deciding significance. Further, this will only cause delays and dissatisfaction, because there will be those who feel offended (committees not asked), there will inevitably be the discontented and those complaining. Consequently, from the standpoint of formal loyalty and from the standpoint of tact, no formal decision should be adopted about collecting votes from committees or anyone whatsoever. This will only undermine the authority of the O.K., which refuses the exclusive initiative entrusted to it.

If it is very uncomfortable to alter the decision that has been adopted (and is formally irreproachable), then perhaps such a way could be found: to transform the voting (of committees) into consultations with them, that is, to decide that the O.K. will, as far as possible, endeavor to take advantage of meetings and conversations for consultations.

In conclusion, we advise you to hurry with the congress. The sooner you convene it, the better. And immediately and more actively set about preparing the committees, designating delegates, conquering Nikolaev and Odessa.

The main thing: to ensure complete certainty in an undoubted majority of resolute Iskra supporters."

Nevzorov disgraced himself yesterday: both Charles Rappoport and Krichevsky gave him a beating. There were no Iskra people 4).

I am leaving, probably, on Sunday. The trains arrive not at 6, but at 3:45 and 10:45. Probably with one of these. Yours.

83.
1768
TO KHARKOV.
Letter to the O.K.
[Before 9 March 1903. Paris *)]

We have just received the congress charter 1). So, we did not understand you and were answering about the ordre du jour **) when you were asking about the congress charter. We hasten to report that in general we are very pleased with your draft, which is carefully and sensibly composed. § 19, which has caused disputes, seems to us reasonable: it is indeed inconvenient and impossible to exclude known organizations from the congress without the consent of the majority of committees (and the charter is precisely, in the final analysis, a charter about the exclusion of some and the authority of others). We would advise only appointing an obligatory and formal term, as short as possible (for example, not more than one week), during which committees and organizations are obligated to work out and send their changes to the charter draft. This is extremely necessary in order to avoid delays, which are to be feared above all else. (Probably, it was out of fear of delays that Ignat protested. His concerns are understandable to us, but if you manage to finish the inquiry quickly, the matter can be put right). ***)

V. I. LENIN — TO E. YA. LEVIN

On our part we will write to the Iskra organizations to adopt our advice to accept immediately and entirely your draft. We earnestly ask you to put all available forces to work so that in no more than a month complete and send out both the draft (on the basis of § 19) and the "session" of arbitration courts, and the determination of the composition of delegates.

Informally we would advise you to recommend in this case to all full member organizations to designate, as far as possible, one (of two) delegates from comrades known by their past work and residing abroad — in order to avoid increasing expenses and difficulties in transferring delegates abroad.

Formally we propose: 1) to supplement your draft only with a note to § 19: "Organizations that have not submitted remarks within one week from the date of receiving the draft are considered to have adopted the congress charter." 2) to add regarding candidates for delegates in case of the arrest of delegates before the congress 2).

84.
1434
TO SAMARA.
15/III [1903. London].

So far Brut has not fulfilled his promise — to write in detail about his impressions.

About a week ago we sent you a letter about the order of the day.

Now we have already received the charter and see that we did not fully understand what the matter was and answered about something else.

The charter pleased us very much, and so on (see the letter to Yuri) 1).

Ufa and Siberian statements have been received 2).

Let Brut see to it that one mandate from Siberia is given to Peru, and let Ufa elect Krokhmal as its representative 3).

If you see Adel 4), tell her that up to 15/III we have received 4 letters and 2 correspondences from her 5); she writes regularly, for which we are very grateful to her.

[Postscript by V. I. Lenin.]

As for the bear, it is very difficult for the old man to answer 6): probably, Claire will be able to answer better. As for the affairs here, it is difficult to raise any objection, all the more since we are moving to Geneva, where everything will be open. Of course, it is best to study abroad. To speak from here about the choice of local affairs is altogether difficult. I repeat that I consider it the only sensible thing on my part to entrust my entire vote entirely to Claire, who knows everything at first hand and will be able to give the best advice.

N. K. KRUPSKAYA — TO G. M. KZHIZHANOVSKY

85.
1418
N. K. KRUPSKAYA — TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF "SOUTHERN WORKER"
IN KHARKOV.
31/III [1903. London].

Letters from Zhenya of the 7th and 11th *) have been received 1), as well as materials sent by Karolina.

1) A letter was sent to you by opportunity; the person who will deliver it is not initiated into any affairs.

2) The O.K. statement regarding the polemic with the Bund was received (just now). Boris's letters were not published (details in the letter sent by opportunity) 2).

3) Gursky has been arrested in Lemberg; Russian passports and addresses have been taken from him and handed over to Russian gendarmes; give notice to Kostya and the Kiev people.

4) Dno went mad, and then was arrested. It is completely impossible to understand what is happening in Petersburg; part of the committee has not heard anything about the O.K. and issued a protest in the name of the Spb. Committee against the fact that the O.K. announced that the Spb. Committee participated in its formation 3). Our Petersburg people are asking for an organizer to be sent to them.

5) The Irkutsk Committee greets the O.K. and asks for the May leaflet to be sent to it in advance for reprint, according to addresses **).

6) The May leaflet was sent via Tver, and then we are sending it according to the address you sent; report on receipt.

TO SAMARA.
(The Old Man)
[3 April 1903. London.)]

I can report little this time. The main thing, in my view, is now to accelerate the congress by all possible means and to ensure a majority of capable (and "our own") delegates. Almost all hope rests on Brut. It is necessary that he himself oversee, as far as possible, everything, especially the delegates and strive to get more of ours through. The system of two votes from each committee is very favorable to this. Then the question of the Bund is extremely important. We have ceased the polemic with them over the O.K., but the principled one, of course, not. There can be no talk of this. And one must pound it into everyone and each person, to the point of complete "driving it into their heads," that if one wants peace with the Bund, one must prepare war with them. War at the congress, war up to a split — at any cost whatsoever. Only then will it yield without doubt. And we absolutely cannot and will never accept the absurd Federation. At most: autonomy according to the old statute of 1898, with the participation of a delegate appointed by the C.C. in the C.C. of the Bund—that is the most. One must prepare the public, explain the absurdity, show the savagery of the outburst against Ekaterinoslav*) and so forth. Please write as soon as possible how the public is disposed in this regard, how your propaganda is going, and whether there is hope that the majority stands on the correct point of view. We want to issue a brochure to the Jewish workers about the necessity of close unity, about the absurdity of Federation and "national" policy³).

V. I. LENIN TO G. M. KRZIZHANOVSKY

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]
3/IV.
We received your letter at the Hazell address⁴). Well, what secrecy you've created there—everything is a riddle—who will see us soon, where is Brut going, why did Zarin go to the devil, who has been left in charge of Kurdevka⁵), what are these rosy prospects. 

Today the Old Man writes, and I am writing only of current matters.

1) The brochure "48 by Bloss" was received, but it is not quite successful and therefore is not being printed.

2) We received a letter from Kina⁶) and passed dealings with him to Romeo (transport group). Queer fellow—he enciphered his signature and therefore we fussed with his letter for two days until we hit upon the key.

3) In Lemberg, Gursky was arrested with passports and addresses, which were passed to Russian gendarmes.

4) Romeo's affairs are not important—there are many beginnings and capable people there, but nothing real.

5) What is the situation with the dogs? They write that Nina is working at full capacity, retyping articles from Zarya, speeches of Nizhny Novgorod workers, and printing leaflets. Here is yet another address to them*). I repeat the same address for letters, but letters to it arrive poorly; we wrote—no answer; the key is "Air Ship." If you don't hurry—Yuri will use it with "patriotic" matters.

Please verify addresses №33 and 34⁷). Connect us with Babylon⁸), Ufa, Kazan, and the industrious ones.

We regard Kurdo very well, but still cannot help reproaching him for silence. Those two letters he speaks of we did receive. But when were they written? Half a year ago! soon after his arrival in Kurdevka. And now he has left⁹), not notifying us of this at all, and we continue sending him letters to the old address. How can one not grumble...

V. I. LENIN—TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMITTEE

[After 22 May 1903. Geneva.)]

I have read your long letter. Many thanks for it. Better late than never. You ask me not to be very angry. I will tell you frankly that I was little angered—more smiling, remembering my last conversation before the doors of the "den" with a certain Zhak²), who thought then (then!), that we commanded too little. That affairs do not straighten out immediately within the O.K., that there is still a darkness of disorder and anarchy—this I knew and expected nothing else. Against this there are no remedies except one: persistent treatment (time and experience) and one powerful-acting means (the general congress of the party). For a long time I have written and repeat³): hurry, for God's sake, with this remedy as soon as you can, otherwise your experience risks being lost altogether.

Regarding the questions of 1) Yuri, 2) the bureau, and 3) Ignat's dispute with the Bundist, I will not write. This is partly outdated, partly subject to decision on the spot, and my advice on this latter part would be (contrary to the opinion of my acquaintance Zhak) at best to no purpose. You (all of you) must decide this yourselves, must in the sense not of the Ought⁴), but of necessity⁴⁵).

I shall speak of the Bund, P.P.S., and the "heresy."

Formally, in my view, one must be correct and loyal with the Bund (not strike it in the teeth directly), but at the same time ice-cold, buttoned up on all buttons, and on legal ground press it inexorably and constantly, going to the end without fear. Let them go, if they want—but we must not give them in their hands even the slightest pretext, not even a shadow of pretext for a break. Formalities up to the congress must certainly be observed, but there is no need to show all one's cards. You write: the Bundist both knows [and is silent], that we are concerned with the Spark, and is silent, though in the name of the O.K. we have no right to do this. In my view, this should not be done in the name of the O.K., but by each member personally, with reference not to the O.K., but to the committees that have recognized the Spark. The result is the same and even much stronger ("agents" are not involved), and the formal side is unimpeachable. Preparing committees against the Bund—one of the most important tasks of the moment, and this too is possible completely without violation of form. 

Exactly the same: it was pointless to speak to P.P.S. about the "convictions of O.K. members" [...⁶)]. One should have said about the O.K.: we are preparing a congress, it will decide; and on the question of "convictions" not to keep silent, but to refer not to the O.K., but to the Spark, and even more to the committees that have recognized the Spark. Then from P.P.S. one ought to obtain at least a small, but formal, piece of paper (letter), and not to say to them "we are anti-nationalists" (why frighten people unnecessarily?), but to convince gently that our program (recognition of the right to national self-determination) is sufficient for them too, calling them to definite counter-statements and to formal appeals to the O.K. and to the congress. Our chief trump against P.P.S. is that we recognize in principle national self-determination, but within reasonable bounds, determined by the unity of proletarian class struggle.

So as not to forget: I do not know for certain who are the representatives of the Russian organization of the Spark in the O.K. I also do not know why I need to know this? and why be "representatives"?? The O.K. coopted long ago all and every capable person, and not "representatives" at all? Or is this not correct?

The difference between the Russian organization of the Spark and the O.K. is important, in my view, to use precisely for the sake of formal unimpeachability.

Now on the "heresy." Either I understand you incorrectly, or [this heresy is very harmful] this is a great error. With the excessive brevity of your letter on this (most important) point, I would...

TO E. M. ALEKSANDROVA

I can only take your words à la lettre*). Four elected [members] will "organize" the C.C. and the C.O.! This, forgive my frankness, is simply absurd, because you surely must know that only to "organize" the C.O. are competent (i.e., can accomplish this with competence and with the necessary experience for it) members of the editorial board — isolated individuals from outside for consultation, and to organize the C.C. are competent only experienced practitioners — isolated individuals for consultation (if you know such people). Or, p[erhaps], do you know of such "four" who have b o t h experience and knowledge for all this??? If so, name them — I say this not in jest, but seriously, because my letter is personal and it is important for me to clarify your thought.

You are seeking, if I am not mistaken, sole authority and a "firm hand." A good cause, and you are a thousand times right that this is precisely what we need. But no one will achieve it as directly as it seems to you. For 9/10 of current affairs, 2 centers are absolutely necessary; they form themselves at once, even if we did not wish it. For order, one must strive for: 1) A formal path for the unification of these 2 centers (for example, a c[ommiss]ion with delegates from both), 2) a reduction in the number of members in both centers, or the singling out of executive commissions within both centers, and [3)] — most importantly — 3) a strict and formal distribution of Functions among individual members of the centers, so that the entire composition of both centers knows precisely, which members are responsible for what, which members (of both centers) have the right to decide (and even speak) on each area of questions and what path exists for transferring the matter to the full assembly of one or both centers.

I am confident that you will moderate your demands once again and agree that this is the maximum of immediate wishes. And this is very, very difficult, and for this distribution of Functions I do not see fully suitable, knowledgeable, experienced people. There is chaos in your affairs and in ours (you gentlemen members of the O.K., do not think only of yourselves; you are "organizing" the entire party) — an abyss, darkness, a chasm, and one must devise not p i a  d e s i d e r i a **), but practical, firm, "first steps."

I have stated my view to you frankly and would be very glad to exchange letters further. On such questions you really ought to write more often and in greater detail. I have nothing against communicating this letter to the entire O.K., I would even wish it, but I leave the decision to you. You did well to note to whom your letter was addressed.

All the best. Moderate your demands and hurry, hurry and hurry with the "potent remedy." I press your hand firmly.

Your Lenin.

1) E. M. Aleksandrova's letter (see p. 345), to which Lenin is replying, was received in Geneva on May 22, 1903.

2) E. M. Aleksandrova's ("Zhak's") stay in London is mentioned in N. K. Krupskaya's memoirs "Before the Second Congress" ("Leninskii Sbornik" IV, pp. 90—91). N. K. Krupskaya apparently errs when she says that Aleksandrova came to London directly from exile. Martov in his letter to Lenin from Paris of June 13, 1902, speaks of Aleksandrova's arrival in Paris. Aleksandrova at that time had not yet joined the direction of "Iskra" (see ibid., p. 113). E. M. Aleksandrova was apparently in London in November 1903. This is evident from Martov's letter to Lenin from Paris of November 29, 1902, in which he writes: "I... wrote that my address is now: Rue Lalande, 4, i.e., Ek. M. [Aleksandrova. Ed.] (pour Mr. G.). Write to her yourself at the French address she gave you upon departing" (italics ours. Ed.). The fact of E. M. Aleksandrova's stay in London in November 1902 is also confirmed by M. N. Leman, whom we inquired about this.

"Vertep" [Den of Thieves] is the common room in a London flat where V. I. Zasulich, Yu. O. Martov, and O. S. Blumenfeld lived in a "commune." Plekhanov called this room the "Vertep" during his stay in London in October 1902 because of the constant disorder that reigned in it.

90.

TO SAMARA.

Personal from Lenin.

[May 24/June 6, 1903. Geneva*.]

Dear friend! Your long silence is extremely oppressing to me. I understand perfectly well why you have no inclination to take up the pen, how difficult, if not impossible it is to write about a heap of trifles, but do not forget all the same that these (often absurd) trifles are coming to us from other sources. You really do need to dash off at least a couple of words, at least to mark out your general line — otherwise you put us in an awkward position on your account. We are being told in both ears about discord in the O.K., about a quarrel with Yury, about a quarrel over Lisa2) and so forth. Of course, I listen to all this reluctantly and will never give (personally for myself) currency to anything until your letter or a meeting, but it would be much more pleasant to have a word from you. And then nothing for months! So I shall await news, and for my part will say briefly: it seems to me (I cannot be certain) that you have gotten a bit carried away with Lisa (a woman not suited to business, she flutters about uselessly without doing her work), that the accusations against Yury are exaggerated, that the most, most and most important thing — is to hurry with the Congress, hurry by all means.

How is Kurd? I recently learned about his health and convinced myself of the groundlessness of my dissatisfaction — or (pass this on to him if you can, but I will add that he is also guilty by his silence). How have you gotten on with Zhak and Kostya? What nonsense is Zhak preaching against 2 centers and cannot you persuade this not unintelligent but inflexible fellow? How is the bear cub3)? What did you advise him? I press your hand firmly, firmly. Your

V. I. LENIN — G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY

[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]

May 24

Your last letter was from March 11/24*), and since then not a word from you!

We too have not written for a long time [because of the move], our last letter was from April 20. There was terrible chaos here! First of all, so as not to forget, the address of Hazell changes as follows: A. P. Hazell, C. Elfort Bond, Aubert Park, London N.

*) The date is established by N. K. Krupskaya's postscript to this letter, dated May 24.

2) Lisa is the pseudonym of M. N. Leman in 1903.

3) Bear cub is the pseudonym of M. I. Ulyanova.

4) G. M. Krzhizhanovsky's letter of March 24 (March 11, o.s.) was copied by N. K. Krupskaya in notebook arch. No. 1434; published in "Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya" No. 6 (77)—7 (78), 1928, p. 172.

*) — March 24 according to new style. Ed.

INDEX OF NAMES.

The index of names of revolutionary figures is based on their permanent surnames; alongside in parentheses are listed the revolutionary and literary pseudonyms or conventional names of these figures encountered in the text of the eighth Miscellany. If a person known in our time only by his revolutionary or literary pseudonym is mentioned in the documents of the present miscellany and also under his real name, we place his real name following the permanent surname, connecting them with a dash. The figures set in regular type indicate the pages on which this surname or pseudonym is encountered; the figures following the permanent surname of a person and set in italics indicate those pages of the miscellany on which this person is encountered not under his surname but under a pseudonym.

INDEX OF NAMES ENCOUNTERED IN THE TEXT OF THE DOCUMENTS OF "LENINSKII SBORNIK" VIII.

[followed by the full alphabetical index of names as provided in the original text]

CONTENTS.

I. V. I. LENIN ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE STATE APPARATUS AND ON THE STRUGGLE AGAINST BUREAUCRATISM AND RED TAPE.

Letters and notes, 1917—1922............................................................ pp. 3—92

Preface.................................................................................... pp. 5—6

[followed by numbered list of documents with dates and page numbers as provided in the original text]

II. FROM THE ERA OF "ISKRA" AND "ZARIA." Correspondence of V. I. Lenin with agents of "Iskra," members of the Russian Organization of "Iskra," and members of the O.K., October 1900—May 1905..................................... pp. 93—360

N. K. Krupskaya. Introduction....................................................... pp. 95—101

[followed by numbered list of letters with dates and page numbers as provided in the original text]